Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 01:18 PM
Original message
Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
Source: Reuters

Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.

The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. What should we expect them to say...
Yes we falsified data to come to a pre-agreed conclusion. The fact that there will be a review and investigation does show that this is a serious situation, but that investigation will be done by the very same people behind that research. They refuse to submit their data to public scrutiny or scientific peer review which is the basis for all credible scientific research, were supposed to believe them just because they say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cowcommander Donating Member (679 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. End justifies the means, I suppose
They mean well, but this is some shady shit regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. not as shady as the propaganda that global warming deniers spread online
that's what's shady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syntheto Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. And if the emails were from...
...those climate researchers who disagreed with the human caused climate change theory were to have their email system hacked and showed the same level of intrigue, you'd take it as proof of the scam they were trying to perpetuate. We've got the emails from these guys, how come we don't have the emails from the other side? This intuitive, feely-meely kind of conspiracy stuff gets old. "Oh, you just know that Big Oil Pharma Religion Farming Whatever has been paying the deniers." Show me the emails proving it. Anyway, when Jones et al had to admit that these emails were genuine, the jig was up, and they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
48. That's different, anyone who denies global warming is evil
and wrong, even if they use facts. Anyone who defends it is righteous and wise, even if they lie.

You must be new here or else you'd know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
60. Too funny!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #60
78. Funny, but sad also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
145. Well, that's actually the problem...
You see, there are simply no facts that cast serious doubt on the issue of warming and climate change.

No lies are needed to make evident our effect on the environment either.


Was this some sort of joke? Were you missing the ' :sarcasm:' tag?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #145
234. It is a theory that must be proven
so first off no contrary facts are needed, the burden of proof is on researchers.

Second those facts are highly suspect given recent revelations. So yeah the data may show one thing, but once evidence comes out that the data has been tampered with, even slightly, it must be reviewed to be of any use, correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
153. Yes, you are a martyr
Denying global warming does sort of justify some contempt, though, what with the evidence and all.

And denialists using facts? Where? When? Were the "facts" in context or just the same sort of nonsense that the creationists play at with evolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #153
159. Ooo! Oooo! Me! Pick me!
I'll take "Same sort of nonsense" for $600 Alex!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #159
171. Yep.
And I'll make my own prediction here: Within 30 days these emails will be gone from the discussion...only to reappear in a couple of years on a wide scale. For the cretinist/denialist there is no such thing as a refuted argument, just arguments on hiatus.

Gotta muddy the waters, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #171
232. what's a "cretinist"?
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 10:55 AM by demwing
Oh. never mind - Urban Dictionary answered it for me.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cretinis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #153
235. You don't understand
that's alright, most people don't. I suspect it comes from our weak emphasis on science in this country.

Here it is, 1) research has nothing to do with any sort of personal pissing match, so attacking people on an individual level is silly. 2) theories don't need to be shown false, they need to be proven by those presenting them, so no amount of counter evidence is even necessary (think innocent until proven guilty, same concept). 3) evidence has come out showing that the data used to build the model we are basing manmade global warming (not just global warming as you think, but tying it to our efforts) has been tainted. I'm sure you are not in the field but in research the one thing you can never recover from, carreerwise, is falsifying data. And for good reason. If they altered data in anyway they should all lose their jobs, right? You can agree with me that lying in research that will determine major policy is a bad thing? Good. 4) it is not as simple as reading a thermometer every few years and sketching a graph from that. The data must be interpreted, I won't bore you with the details but there is a lot of mathematical "adjustments" and judgement calls involved, all of which are open to various forms of interpretation.

Don't worry about it, leave the analytical types to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #235
336. I understand perfectly.
You don't know how to think or are suspending your ability in the interest of a political agenda in the hopes of "winning."

1) research has nothing to do with any sort of personal pissing match, so attacking people on an individual level is silly

No, it doesn't. That makes it doubly stupid for denialists to attempt an attack of AGW theory based on the intemperate or even unprofessional *personal* comments of a very small number of scientists. I've seen this act before. (See: anti-evolutionists)

2) theories don't need to be shown false, they need to be proven by those presenting them, so no amount of counter evidence is even necessary (think innocent until proven guilty, same concept)

You're whining. The fact is that AGW has been amply supported in the scientific literature. Whether you believe it or like it is your personal problem.

You should also, if you're really analytical ;) , realize that if you are proposing that AGW is *wrong* that it is your burden to demonstrate that. Merely punting eternally and chanting "Nuh-uh!" doesn't mean that AGW is in the slightest wrong. The climatologists have held up their end and supported their views in the scientific literature. Now you do yours...or quit whining.

3) evidence has come out showing that the data used to build the model we are basing manmade global warming (not just global warming as you think, but tying it to our efforts) has been tainted.

That's patently untrue for the following reasons: A) you are making believe that there is only one model out there --there's not; B) you can give zero unambiguous evidence that any evidence was "tainted." Of course, ambiguity is your bread and butter on this issue, no? ;)

4) it is not as simple as reading a thermometer every few years and sketching a graph from that. The data must be interpreted, I won't bore you with the details but there is a lot of mathematical "adjustments" and judgement calls involved, all of which are open to various forms of interpretation.

I'm well aware of what has to be done. It is done by many people in many places and in many ways. ALL of them point to AGW. But not only does analysis point to AGW, so does observation other than just reading the thermometer and analyzing data. It is clearly warming dramatically. This is evidence through observations of the habits and habitats of flora and fauna, increase in ocean temperatures, mass loss occurring in BOTH polar ice caps, worldwide melt of glaciers, and other observations. But I guess the climatologists are so powerful that they can direct Nature to follow their directives, right?

It is relatively simple math to figure out roughly how much human activity adds to the atmosphere every year. There is also an isotopic signature that fingerprints the source of the added CO2 in our atmosphere. The fingerprint says, for the most part, "fossil fuels."

Maybe your superiority would be better used in instances where your knowledge is actually superior? Just a suggestion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
130. Climate change is a scam?
Please show me in this article where it disputes the findings of the climate change scientists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garam_Masala Donating Member (711 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #130
328. Global Warming exists! There is incontroverible Proof!
There is absolutely zero/zip/nada doubt that ice age visited the earth 10-12 Thousand years ago.
How do these ignoramuses think the last ice age ended?

There was a substantial global warming period which followed the ice age, that is how!

And this cycle has repeated regularly in the past per geological evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
152. Here's what you claim you're looking for
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
158. "The 'jig' was up"? What 'jig'?
There's nothing there except a few phrases the scientifically illiterate assume mean what they do not.

As for 'proof' that big oil pays deniers, have you been living in a cave?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_sc...

Seriously. You're not fooling anyone here. Reality is taken fairly seriously here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #18
253. you wish it was a "jig"... how much are they paying you folks
to spread your garbage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. I wouldn't put faceless (and often nameless) teabaggers' online ravings
On a par with world respected scientists. People online have to credibility. These scientists did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
57. "Respected" is highly variable, "Did" is the operative word
They lost any respect they may have had.

Anybody who still has respect for them is a blind follower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #57
73. But it's all relative
I was comparing them to random teabaggers posting on the internet. There's a huge gap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #57
176. Please explain what they did that should bring 'disrespect' for them. (And use exact quotes)
You won't use exact quotes, because you know that the real quotes are fairly innocuous.

No, you'll do what every denialist does; paraphrase out of context.

Give it a shot anywho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #176
212. you want exact quotes? Here you go:
The first is the direct attack on science itself. Modern science depends on the peer-review process and allowing others to check your work. These guys REFUSE to do that. They WILL NOT release their data:

"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Cheers Phil"


Then, when others try to get at the information through FOIA and its equivalents, these guys conspire to avoid the law, and say they will delete their data before they ever allow anyone to look at it:

"Mike,

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And dont leave stuff lying around on ftp sites you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA wholl say we must adhere to it !

.

Phil"


And then again:



From: Phil Jones:

To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: raymond s. bradley, Malcolm Hughes

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,



Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS Im getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Dont any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !




So clearly you have a direct assault on Science. These guys will not let anybody else review their work or data. That doesn't bother you?

Of course there are the other suggestions about "hiding the decline" i.e. performing stunts on the data, although I have not read enough of that yet to form a sure opinion that I have the context correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #212
215. "Direct assault on Science"
Maybe we could call it "The War on Science", play some kettledrums in the background.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #215
218. I don't get what you find so funny about scientists conspiring..
..to not release their data such that the work can be tested by others? This is an assault on Science. You obviously have no respect for Science, like the right-wingers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #218
221. It is you that I find funny.
"direct assault on Science", "scientists conspiring", etc. For independent testing of scientific results, the whole idea is for the independent verifiers to acquire and analyze their own data, not some other guys. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #221
223. No, you are wrong.
Sorry. You are simply wrong. Totally 100% wrong.

Why don't you just say straight out "Because I believe in Global Warming, I am willing to ignore gross abuses by leading scientists so long as they further my belief"?

That is, clearly, your position.

Am getting on a plane now, bye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #223
224. Do you have any "underlying data" for that?
Why are you hiding it anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #176
299. Oh, the spin!
naaman fletcher gave you one answer before I could.

You manage to spin it with the fervor of a religious zealot.

Other scientists want to know whether their conclusions based on the data are correct.

That is how science works.

They don't want other scientists to test their conclusions.

That is not how science works.

Specifically they don't want to since others might reach different conclusions based on the data.

That is absolutely unscientific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unabelladonna Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
55. let's be honest
global warming is down my list of pressing, fixable problems. i don't want my taxes used for ephemeral little feelgood causes so that gore can feel he's making a difference while he's flying around on his private jet (while we switch to fluorescent bulbs and pay more for energy).i do realize this may not be a progressive point of view...but i wouldn't be surprised if some of my fellow DUers feel the same way i want to feed the starving, end the war, vaccinate the poor. we have more important things to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
70. Well said.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrynXX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #55
72. re: i want to feed the starving, end the war, vaccinate the poor. we have more important things to d
re:
i want to feed the starving, end the war, vaccinate the poor. we have more important things to do.




exactly. Green = more jobs, more food and ironically if more science was involved, it would be faster to vaccinate the poor instead of relying on chicken eggs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #55
75. I wish we would just concentrate on things everyone can agree with
One of the main areas is that saving money is a good thing, and conserving energy and other non-renewalable assets saves money in the long run and is a very good thing.

That major area of agreement has been lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #55
131. Sweet Jesus
Health care will be done--one way or the other--in a month or two. So the next big thing is working on climate change and here you people are like freaking clock work. Go make your money posting somewhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a la izquierda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
134. well, keep ignoring global warming...
and we won't have to worry about anything else. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kadie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #134
156. Yep.
:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
147. You don't understand the scope of the problem.
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 10:24 PM by backscatter712
Most of it is due to the obfuscation and deception campaigns from the big polluter industries.

But the fact is that global warming already has and will cause trillions of dollars of property damage, kill millions of people, and cause a global geopolitical clusterfuck. Did you like Katrina? Oh, there's more - one effect of climate change is that the weather will become more violent. More hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons, other storms. Then there's the rising sea levels, the effects ranging from drought to torrential storms, depending on the region, that will destroy crops and impact mankind's ability to grow enough food to feed everyone.

These emails are a distraction. Climate change research has been going on for decades, by thousands of scientists, and we're talking about a few scientists that may or may not have falsified research. But thousands of studies, repeated and vetted around the world provide compelling evidence that man-made climate change is real, and guaranteed to cause severe problems for us if not dealt with.

But hey, if you want to continue being a tool for big oil and big coal, it's your choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #55
161. "ephemeral little feelgood causes"?
Well, if you actually do pay taxes, it's not for being employed as a writer.

So Gore is more interested in being a hero than in trying to help stave-off the devastation of a climate-gone-wild?

You guys really can't undo your programming enough to even phone it in anymore, can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unabelladonna Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #161
177. did i claim to be a writer? "doctor"? and why question whether i pay taxes?
a little defensive aren't you....making personal digs. i just can't worry about the "planet" self=destructing centuries into the future. there are more important problems to be solved now, ahem, "doctor".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #177
180. No, not 'defensive' at all...
You apparently do not know how the 'defense'<->'offense' thing works.

You use language only a person who is ignorant of the science, what motives it inspires and why it inspires them would use.

It's a pretty typically ignorant thing to claim the planet will 'self-destruct centuries into the future' for so many reasons. The problem, as you are so keen to ignore, is that it is happening now. We are now past the point of no return and looking for ways to mitigate the damage.

Your attitude is that of a blind driver headed towards a brick wall at 100 mph while your passengers are screaming at you to stop. As you've sped toward the wall, you've been telling yourself and your passengers that 'everything's ok, because nothing's happened yet'. Sure, the headlights have just impacted the wall, but since you're not going to feel the impact for another millisecond or so; why brake now?

Heck you have to worry about tuning the radio right now.

I know with a certainty that this is lost on you. I really don't think you can reconcile the timescales and inertia to understand the analogy. Nonetheless, to claim that you also cannot walk and chew gum is not a very flattering thing to say about yourself.

Or is that lost on you as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #177
321. yeah, that's the same attitude wall street has
i want my money NOW.

i don't give a flying rats ass if it causes the world economy to melt down. you can't prove it will happen, and if it does, it won't happen for years.

more smoke, more mirrors, more "creative" money making of something off of nothing.

i AM greedy. so fucking what.

:puke:

and :sarcasm: for those who don't get it.

add higher sea levels to more powerful storms, and just how far inland do you want "beach" erosion to be before you give a squat?

yea, right. you don't have a home on the coast so you don't give a shit.

typical.

sniff, sniff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #55
252. you aren't honest... so there is no "us"
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 12:19 PM by fascisthunter
especially when it comes to the well being of the human race, you obviously don't care about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
322. It's all shady...
Good scientific practices mean not destroying original data and tweaking the numbers.

Good science will stand on it's own. We might even be able to make some good decisions that way.

The deniers don't have good enough science to believe their denials, but then, it seems, neither does the UN.

I'm pretty aggravated at all the political shenanigans going on in the scientific community.

Politicians telling scientists what they want the data say isn't good for the planet, or the rest of us mere mortals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. None of you will convince the majority that Global Warming is a Hoax
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 02:53 PM by fascisthunter
what is a hoax is you and those of you trying to cover up the truth with this conspiracy bullshit. Global Warming mainly caused by man is a FACT, and too many already have seen the evidence. What you are doing is sick and perverted, because this issue is going to effect us all, including yourselves. There is something wrong with people who want to hide the truth from people about something so critical to their well being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
58. There is something wrong, indeed
These scientists have been trying to hide the truth of their shoddy datasets and dishonest procedures for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
154. Please give examples of shoddy datasets...
...and dishonest procedures. Or, as I suspect, are they all in your head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #154
179. Read the file HARRY_READ_ME.txt
It is the notes from their programmer working on the data.

He is disgusted by the poor quality and arrangement.

The code is pretty whacked too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #179
182. Yes, that's what people who do 'science' do; constant feedback and improvement.
I'm not surprised to see so much scientific illiteracy pop up all of the sudden.

Science is about finding flaws with the tools and making better tools. Now, if you found something that said, "Hey guys, that programmer is going to expose the flaws in the code! We better send him for a swim in a boron speedo!", then maybe you'd have something.

'Till then, all you guys are doing is clutching at straws with greased chopsticks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #182
262. You obviously didn't read the file
"Flaw" in this case is crunching the data and coming up with a result they didn't want.

You plug "2+2=" into your calculator and it come up with 4.

Most would accept the answer.

They re-wrote the calculator software to make it show 3 because that's the answer they wanted, input be damned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #179
205. That is your interpretation of a second-hand account.
So where is this shoddy data of which you speak? Show me exactly what you are talking about. A programmer claiming that climate data is shoddy is unimpressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #205
263. It is quite impressive
When he's one of the ones who produces the results that governments make policy on.

Oh the data, that's right THEY DELETED MUCH OF IT!

How convenient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #263
335. Okay, then what did the programmer mean...
...by "shoddy?" Was the handwriting bad? Were the columns misaligned? Was the data made up? What, exactly, was "shoddy?"

How would a programmer know if the climate data itself was "shoddy?"

It is on the denialists to support their interpretation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #58
163. Oh please do post this "truth".
:eyes:

So here you are, another person that obviously has no clue how scientific consensus and conclusions are reached, how easily "shoddy data-sets and dishonest procedures" are uncovered in the process, and how innocuous the content of the emails truly is (likely due to your own scientific illiteracy), making claims about "truth".

Ok, let's see how and where these 'shoddy data sets' were used to 'fool' all of us.

I won't hold my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #163
293. Innocuous emails?
That is some severe spin.

Only the true faithful will accept that spin.

They're talking about how to eliminate the effects of data that contradicts their desired results.

How is that good science?

This is a smoking gun.

Not for all climate research, but for these guys and anyone who relies on their research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #58
247. that's a lie... but I expect that from you
oh rightward one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #247
296. What part is a lie?
That they've been refusing to release the data? That is fact.

It is supported by their own emails about how to circumvent the FOI law about releasing the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
64. And speaking of hiding from the "truth"...
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 06:28 PM by GMA
You sound like a religious nut. If the data is wrong, if we as humans, and the planet, won't have the impact the POLITICIANS and Al Gores of the world have been pushing--for political and financial gain--we should all be cheering.

I had a friend many years ago who spent all his time looking for signs that the world was ending. Every year that it didn't end he was so disappointed. Eco-religion is just as nutty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #64
155. Ignoring reality is even nuttier
Particularly when you use bum logic. Do you actually deny that the Earth is warming? If so, you are at odds with reality. If not, then a real cause exists. What specifically is that cause?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
175. 'Eco-religion'?

I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose, or if you really are as irrational as you seem, but either way it's not good.

The study of AGW/Climate change was performed by scientists, not 'POLITICIANS'. It obviously doesn't seem to occur to you that there are motives outside of 'political and financial gain'. Try to wrap your head around this (I know it will be tricky); If you saw a tornado coming toward your apartment complex, would you try to rouse everyone from sleep or breakfast in order to take action to save lives?

No, of course not... because there's no 'profit' in it for you. Right?

Or maybe you would, and some people would tell you you were just trying to 'play hero' and stay in bed. Perhaps they would stay at the breakfast table for fear you'd steal their food. Either way, can you imagine pointing out the window at something totally obvious to you, but since the morons you were dealing with couldn't grasp the proof it was coming they called you nuts?

No, you can't.

That, and you've given away the fact that you're scientifically illiterate with the term 'Eco-religion'.

Want to know why that's a dead give-away that you're clueless on this matter? 'Religion' deals with blind faith and unfounded belief. Because you cannot grasp the science, you think that it must be the same thing as religion. It is not. You and the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason crowd are simply not willing to learn that science is about studying reality for the sake of acting constructively.
Ignorance frees people like yourself from the responsibility of dealing with difficult things and acting constructively. The predictions from the modelling have been happening sooner than expected. Unless you're a total moron, you understand that means the threat is very serious.

But you don't understand, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #175
314. Follow the money.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #314
318. Indeed! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
244. you sound like a disgruntled global warming denying fool
who peddles propaganda in hopes to muddy the topic just enough. You FAIL miserably, because too many people don't play your bs game and have brains enough to research themselves.

If you think you know more than the global scientific community, than I say you were the fundamentalist nut here, and not me. You are on a fool's errand....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #244
258. Way back a week or so ago, in another thread on climate change,
I said I think part of the problem in discussing this issue is that people on either side seem to run to the poles. I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe there is climate change going on. The question is not what's happening, but whether or not man plays any significant part in those changes, and what, if anything we can do to CHANGE NATURE. That's where I see politics, peer pressure, greed, and a play for power come in.

Call me what you like. I think the debate needs to expand, hopefully in a civil manner. If there are mistakes, if there is corruption, we should hope to get it cleaned up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
132. This thread is crawling with them
And the bill isn't even being debated yet in Congress. I guess today was the day for the lobbyist to unleash them upon the internets. Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
135. I think there needs to be an announcement from the White House to the Public.
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 09:34 PM by glinda
It is of concern to National Security, Economy, Health and everything else just about.It can be delivered as a Public Address in a way to not freak people out. I think it is time this Country face the facts. Put an end to the crap. Even tie it in with some new initiatives and jobs if possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. I believe the scientists because I look around the world -- directly -- and see the changes
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 03:16 PM by SpiralHawk
Their science, even wrapped in a bit of dirty underwear- is still honorable enough to validates the realities I percieve with my own faculties. No amount of right-wing sabotage or reality denial will influence that.

Even with their occult, mindf*ck tricks & techniques, the right-wing materialists are too obvious in their perversion of reality for anyone to respect their crapoganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Titanothere Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
340. evidence like the almost complete absence of hurricanes this year?
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 02:17 PM by Titanothere
This is the problem with the climate change champions. They warn of rising shorelines and unending killer hurricanes etc, but then when it doesn't happen they don't get questioned. It's just "oh well, someday there probably will be another one (just like there have been throughout history), and then you'll see that we were right." In the meantime, pay no attention to the cooler weather and calm seas behind the curtain, they are of no importance as data points and will properly deleted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Do you actually have any evidence for those claims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. I live in Southern California. My paperwhites are in bloom.
Plants that used to emerge from their bulbs in January and February are quite tall. Would you like to hear more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
82.  Well, sure, I'm happy to hear whatever you want to say. Just in case it's unclear, I'll point out
I was replying to a poster who seems to think there is a vast conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming through fraud -- which seems to me highly unlikely and entirely unsupported by evidence

I consider global warming very plausible: one has the snowpack and glacier photgraphs; one knows that the antarctic ice shelves are collapsing and that arctic sea-ice is vanishing; I'm strongly inclined to think Arrhenius had the right idea about CO2 a century ago

Local anecdotal evidence, of course, is always problematic: temperature changes will affect both atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, and the interaction with landforms and land cover will produce non-uniform effects -- some regions will become warmer and some cooler, as average temperature rises. Comparing temperatures in places I've lived, though, suggests warming: I lived in Boston many years ago and the winters were quite notable; when I returned for a winter meeting in the mid-90s, I was surprised how balmy it seemed and remarked it to a cabby, who said the winters had become tamer in recent years. I later had a similar experience with winters in Pennsylvania, where I had also once lived before. One thing I think I've noticed in North Carolina is the expected increase in extreme weather

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. you are spreading more lies aid for by the oil industry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. There is nothing in the emails that disproved human-caused
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 04:05 PM by Hissyspit
climate change. It's a smear campaign and you will find that Republian corporate talking points don't fly here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
65. But the very fact that the emails are real,
and that there are questions about why the original data was disposed of, smack of corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #65
157. There is no such question.
It was budget hawks that limited the amount of data that could be preserved. (Yes, this was actually expensive at the time.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #157
313. Paper tape and mag tape?
As my husband--who's been in IT for 30+ years says: "horseshit". That's a little like saying fossils couldn't be preserved or stored because they take up too much room or cost too much. YOU DON'T DESTROY ORIGINAL DATA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #313
331. Ask your husband --who's been in IT for over 30 years...
...how much a lab could save by reusing tapes rather than buying new tapes. Had you bothered to read both sides you know that that is what happened to the tapes in this case. They were erased and reused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. Climate scientists refuse to submit their research to peer review?!?!
:rofl:

Then why are scientific journals FILLED with peer-reviewed studies confirming the effects of global warming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
59. They wouldn't provide the raw data to let others confirm
That is why this is such a treasure trove. It includes raw data.

And the raw data is SCREWED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #59
89. Publication in peer-reviewed journals involves review of raw data.
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 06:50 PM by kestrel91316
You're just making crap up. Global warming is SETTLED SCIENCE. The only thing that's not settled is how fast humans are going to go extinct as a result, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #89
109. Why do they talk about how to prevent
The release of the raw data?

BTW, there is no such thing as a settled science. You haven't a clue about science if you think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #109
202. No such thing as settled science?
We don't see many people jumping off cliffs to dispute Newton's theory of gravity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #202
295. We have found out that Netwon's theory of gravity is flawed
Superseded by General Relativity.

But that is also flawed.

Quantum theory is the best we have so far.

There is no settled science.

There is only our current best understanding of the natural world.

Given time there is always a better understanding coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #89
169. No, it doesn't
Peer review doesn't mean a study has been replicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #59
107. high paid industry trolls are picking through all climate research looking for
molehills they can turn into mountains. scientists are trying to find out where were headed and these industry paid motherfuckers want only to obstruct.

the idea that this brings global warming under question is a limbaugh wet dream and no rational informed human would entertain it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. People all over the Internet are doing it
This is a grassroots effort.

Programmers all over are going through the code and data as we speak.

What they found after only the first day was not pretty.

I might have to dust off my old FORTRAN books and take a look myself.

Emails can be misleading and missing context.

The code doesn't lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #113
121. what a load of crap- the code doesn't lie?
Emails can be misleading and missing context.
the whole point is to take this out of context, whatever it is. you go ahead and get your old fortran book out.

Programmers all over are going through the code and data as we speak.

What they found after only the first day was not pretty.
you realize this is all stupid, don't you? the 99% of scientists that agree we've got man made warming going on are not going to change their mind because a pack of dittoheads think there's a conspiracy going on. the whole point is to obstruct obama by using fools so the co2 producers can keep doing whatever they want for a little longer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. i did that on purpose
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #121
172. They aren't going to change their minds
Because there is too much political power and money wrapped up in Global Warming.

Too many careers and reputations based on it.

Too many fortunes to be made.

Even if they find out their data is faulty.

This has gone beyond science.

It's a political issue now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #172
206. the money is in denial at the moment,
to give the dinosaurs time to turn. recognition of the problem is where the opportunity is for the little guys but that means a loss of control by the big guys. decades of monopolies fall apart.

i wish we didn't have a climate deterioration problem, but we really do, no matter what a few scientists fucked up, if they fucked up, and what they fucked up. . it really doesn't matter a hill of beans what happened there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #206
268. The money is in global warming
The money made by the businesses interested in no global warming is a pittance compared to the trillions the governments plan to spend to address it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #268
280. the adjustments we HAVE to make to save this planet before
we get into a major extinction episode will create opportunities and shift economies but environmentalists aren't spending shit compared to what the energy industry is spending to delay the adjustments even they know will have to come.

and they also figure the longer they can delay and the worse it gets the more of your tax dollars will have to go nuclear and other centralized solutions and exclude the little guys. and gals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #280
292. The governments are spending
And that money will go to people. Those people stand go gain.

The governments stand to gain power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #292
301. obviously the 'markets' haven't been working to avoid this problem
so WE THE PEOPLE and our government have to step in. otherwise the monopolies that the GOP spends so much effort in perpetuating, at the expense of small business, are just going to keep raping the commons until their ownership has to move into underground bunkers. they'll have plenty of 'stuff' but the planet will be fucked,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #301
304. Clearly, "the markets" are deeply flawed.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #301
316. Obviously the government hasn't been working well either
But which problem?

This new one?

Or the concrete problems we've had right at our doorsteps for years that still aren't fixed by government or industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #316
317. the GOP's stated goal is to destroy govt. (that's we the people)
and it is clear that their purpose when they get in is to sabotage it so they can say see it doesn't work. they don't want to use it for we the people or small business, they want to give more power to corporations because until we fix campaign finance that's who the entire republican party and parts of the dem party work for,

without a govt (we the people) to set the rules the corporations will just run us over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #317
330. Who are the corporations accountable to? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tex-wyo-dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #113
137. FORTRAN?!? Are you fucking kidding me?
You must work for some dumbass Exxon IT group if you're still using FORTRAN

:rotflol:

Go peddle your shill somewhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. Nothing wrong with Fortran for a purpose like this
The global warming denialism is ridiculous, but Fortran was my first programming language, so I feel compelled to defend it.

You kids today. Get off my lawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #137
170. The CRU is using FORTRAN
That fact is in the programmer notes.

Have you bothered to read them?

You just called the CRU a dumbass group.

You were at least right about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #137
173. To be fair, FORTRAN is used all the time for scientific computing.
I've sure seen enough of it to last me. :p
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
32. "Free market" NUTJOBS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. They didn't falsify information... and Global Warming is real
They used terms like "trick" (which has a different meaning in the UK) and the deniers hacked into their computers and released out of context emails, in concert with a coordinated RW media assault.

They're doing to Global Warming what that gadfly street movie maker did to Acorn. It is a red herring and its silly to even be debating it on DU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #47
80. Even if we throw out that "tricky" email,
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 06:34 PM by GMA
there are 3000 or so emails left, involving over 40 people. And then there are the comments in the source code...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #80
140. There are only 40 people in the world studying climate change?
I swear I saw tens of thousands of them at the last climate conference I attended.

Every single one of them seemed to think climate change was real and had data to back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #80
148. Yes, I'm sure that from the thousands of scientifically illiterate morons perusing the texts,
They'll find a whole bunch of crap they don't understand to take out of context and run around saying, "See! It'z a hokes!", Like children running about with their diapers around their ankles.

Lemme guess... you also have no clue what that 'trick' was about, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #47
108. The most telling part is the programmer's notes
He is complaining about how the data is hosed. It often isn't organized in a meaningful way.

He talks about how to make the program produce the results he wants from the data rather than having the data determine the results.

He talks about how to make data that doesn't fit the desired results disappear in the finished product.

This is not good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #108
186. Oooo! I want to try too!


He talks about how the program doubles as a psychiatry simulacrum.

He goes on and on about how the data prevents erectile dysfunction.

He also talks about how Jimmy Hoffa was buried in the code.


This is fun! Can I get a job like yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
85. I need money. Where do I go to apply for your job? It seems really easy,
typing RW talking points and delusional crap on message boards all day long.......and you even get holidays off!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #85
231. But do they get paid health insurance?
Somehow I don't think so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
105. what a load of crap- listen to some limbaugh, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
129. Where do you get that from the article?
~from the link:

The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.

~snip~The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilization could be severe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greennina Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. There is no evidence the "leaked" emails are legit.
That is the facts that they should be pushing. There's no proof that every single word of those "leaked" documents aren't completely fabricated. Of course the media doesn't care about facts. All they acare about is making Democrats look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Where did you get that ?
The researchers have never denied that the emails are real, only that they are taken out of context, but reading them it's hard to see how that is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Reading them out of context, it's hard to see them out of context?
What? That doesn't even make sense. Neat trick you've pulled there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. to say that they are evidence of a massive scientific conspiracy
is to take them way out of context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. It's hard to see how water can be muddy if you live your entire life in muddy water. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
187. Really? Cool.
Go ahead and post some excerpt that aren't possibly 'out of context'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acsmith Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. they are confirmed by the people that wrote them...
...and the some people that received them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. But what do they know?
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 05:02 PM by JonQ
If you want the real story ask people on the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. Smile...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Has anyone here actually read these emails?
I will admit that I have not. But on getting in a company car, with the radio tuned to a RW station, I heard an exerpt of one read, and then explained by none other than the Limbaugh homself.

What he read was innocuous. What the email itself said was in essence "Climate deniers are attacking right now, and its lucky we have this data now to refute them".

His explanation made no sense to anyone with an iota of scientific training or common sense, however. He explained that this was a conspiracy and it was all political.

What was in this email was scientists with data sharing it to refute idiots with no data. That's not "political". That's scientists defending the results of science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. you will find quite a few here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Excerpts
that do not say what I think you think they say.

The characterizations of excerpts that that page makes are not at all accurate. And the Emboldened bits are not terribly incriminating. If thats the worst that came out of this, then this flap is even more ridiculous than I had at first thought.

Your post 1 characterization of the emails is also incorrect. Nowhere in there do I read "we falsified data". By and large, they tried to come up with explanations of why the data showed what it showed. They asked "what if" questions, to try to figure out what was going on. Thats how people brainstorm. If you have never been in a lab, trying to figure out why you got a result you got, and if you are determined that you do not believe in global warming, then I can see how you came to the conclusion you are putting out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
39. Andronex, those e-mails don't suggest a cover-up at all.
They suggest the kind of editing that a team of scientists do when working on data. If they were covering things up, they would hire lawyers to handle their communications so that they would be harder to hack or take into a court or even to the public. These e-mails are just typical editing conversations.

Scientists re-do calculations and review data to insure consistency and accuracy all the time. That is what peer review is about. And the comment about don't tell anyone about the FOIA? That is an in-joke about the oblivious stupidity of people who steal e-mails when all they would have to do to get the data is to file a FOIA act or ask for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #39
225. You obviously didn't read them..
And the comment about don't tell anyone about the FOIA? That is an in-joke about the oblivious stupidity of people who steal e-mails when all they would have to do to get the data is to file a FOIA act or ask for it.


They specifically ignore FOIA requests, and discuss deleting data rather than releasing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #225
226. How are things on the plane?
Did you take off yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
68. Well, there's a first for me here on du,
using a snippet of one email, read by Limbaugh, to refute anything...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
174. I've read quite a few
Don't listen to the spin. Read them for yourself.

In my opinion, most are innocent. The scary ones show:

A concerted effort to violate the UK Freedom of Information law

Conspiring to delete emails requested under the law

Coming up with ways to prevent having to publish their data under the law

Keeping dissenting papers from being published

Blacklisting journals that publish disagreeing papers

Eliminating the effects of data that doesn't agree with their desired result

In the last one they sound like creationists "The data doesn't agree with my preconceived conclusion so the data must be wrong, not my conclusion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #174
191. And yet you can't post excerpts that *prove* those conclusions...
why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #191
267. Of course I can
Of course you will find a way to spin it into innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. I noticed a couple DUers joined in on that smear campaign.
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 02:22 PM by Kingofalldems
On threads this week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Me too... funny thing, never seen them before
hmmmm.... and of course they repeat the right wing garbage that global warming is a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unabelladonna Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
56. i don't say it's a conspiracy
i say it's the wrong cause wwhen half the f--king world is at war or starving or dying from diarrhea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
92. The ENTIRE world is going to be starving if we don't act to mitigate
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 06:54 PM by kestrel91316
the climate change WE HAVE CAUSED, and act fast. Funny, I don't think you actually give a damn about those dying people. You probably think they are just useless eaters getting in the way of some sort of resource exploitation or another, and hurting your profit margin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beardown Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #56
97. These will be known as the good old days
If global warming, like calling Ebola virus fluid reduction therapy, keeps kicking in as it has been, the survivors will look back on these days when ONLY half the world was starving or at war as the good old days.

We're not talking voting rights for Chimps or something that will only negatively impact a tiny portion of the population. It'll impact the Earth and poor nations and individuals will bear the brunt of it. Adjusting current production and energy and transportation will impact the rich as well as the poor so you're target population seems to be the Rush Limbaugh type rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
88. The ones I was referencing were not new at all
And they just about dominated an entire thread. It looked like free republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #88
251. well, where are the mods
why do they not read their posts and do anything about it. It's obvious why they post here and what their overall political perspective is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R. I agree.
Especially since there's been an ongoing multimillion dollar PR campaign in the USA to confuse the issue and get people to close their eyes when shown those photos of melting glaciers, icecaps breaking up and coral reefs dying.

There's even PR on the New Agey front. A pal of mine who thinks it is all just a hoax to scare people believes it to be so because he also knows the moon landing was a hoax too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. powerful big polluters think their profits are more important than humanity itself
sick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
19. This seems to be the general attitude of many on DU...
from the emails:

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

This has nothing to do with science on the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. It does when the opposing camp
has no compunctions against dishonesty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. this is not about opposing camps...
it's supposed to be about science not ideology and that is where most people loose it, things are labelled left or right and we choose accordingly like it was some kind of religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutankhamun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. It is absolutely tragic that people often do see global warming
as a political choice, to be believed or disbelieved based on political orientation. It's just a scientific issue. Those of us who know that listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists, and those who don't understand that get their "science" from Sean Hannity.

I like to suckerpunch RW global warming deniers by telling them, when they dispute Al Gore's statements on the subject that Al Gore isn't the best authority on global warming. I get them nodding as they think I'm agreeing with them that global warming doesn't exist. Then, I point out that it's the scientists we should listen to, the vast majority of whom warn that global warming is a very real danger. So, no, you don't have to listen to Al Gore, but you should try reading some scientific journals. Finally, I like to ask them where they get their information on the subject, and watch them struggle to avoid admitting they get their "science" from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
203. The problem is that it IS about opposing camps
Science exists. And at times people from the left find it objectionable. And the people from the right find it objectionable in its entirety. When the right spends 20 years attacking the science, and the rights general way of attacking a fact is to attack the fact finder, then you end up with 20 years of the right attacking scientists and science. Small wonder that there is an antagonistic relationship there.

Now if you say it shouldn't be about opposing camps, I could agree with you. The problem where that ideal hits a very corrupt and financialy invested real world. Let me know when you come up with a fix for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. the lesson here is that there's a whole lot more to "science" than just the science part --
there's politics and sociology, just like with any other human endeavor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
41. No, nashville_brook, this is about the fact that when
people work together in a team to review or edit papers, they sometimes challenge each other's assumptions and try to make suggestions to strengthen the paper that is to be published.

I assure you, the other side hides its working papers much more carefully.

For how many years did the tobacco industry hide the results of its own tests about the link between cancer and tobacco. And don't mention asbestos if you don't want to hear about industrial cover-ups.

The scientists who prepared these e-mails have nothing to gain by cheating. They are not selling a product. In fact, they would have a lot to lose if they were actually cheating.

But they do have to be careful to eliminate from the data information that appears to be quite incorrect, that is so anomalous as to be clearly dubious. When a small amount of data is extremely inconsistent with the pattern established by a great deal of data, then the small, inconsistent data is more likely wrong than the larger quantity of data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #41
230. tomato, tomahto -- scientists have biases, and (gasp!) act on them. call it cheating, tweeking,
spinning, or scrubbing. they all do it. that which we take for scientific "truth" is just as likely to be arrived at thru cheating/tweeking/spinning/scrubbing, as any other sort of "truth." parts of the puzzle that don't fit are put into the "noise" pile.

for me, that's what keeps science interesting. it's never 'all figured out,' b/c there's always these ill-fitting pieces that are relegated to the scrap heap.

agreed: these guys had nothing to gain by cheating -- and, notice how matter-of-fact the cheating was done. the anomalous data was clearly dubious, and extremely inconsistent with the established pattern -- so, off to the "noise" heap it goes.

i don't see this as a problem -- it doesn't alter the fact that climate change challenges human civilization. that pile of noise will continue to sit there...an object to be fought over in the realms of politics and sociology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
160. Precisely, brook. Color me not shocked. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. Absolutely nothing there disproves human-caused climate change.
And there's nothing particularly illegitimate there either. They are discussing someone else's legitimacy.
Keep trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. so...
if another scientist does not share the same point of view it's OK to go to through back channel to have him lose his job, and this is supposed to be open scientific debate, this is more like Bush type gestapo tactics, the same that was used against those who dared question WMD's in Iraq. On some levels the so called left does meet the extreme right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KakistocracyHater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. so......what do you do with a potential saboteur in your midst?
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 04:38 PM by KakistocracyHater
How many times has the Left done what the Right has done, how many arrests for t-shirts? How many times were they on the 'watch list' accidentally? How many R governors(former & current) were jailed/charged? How many R federal attorneys removed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #38
69. If he says crazy shit
and then uses his association with the university and the scientific community to lend credibility to something that otherwise would have none, then yes.

This is very similar to the case of that young earth creationist biology professor who got thrown out on his ass after using his university affiliation and credentials to claim that creationism and intelligent design are valid scientific views. Should he have kept his job, too?

JMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #38
193. "Back channel to have him lose his job" ? Ummm.... didn't you just post this;

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

It's as if your brain uses Micheal Bay's editor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. Triumphantly waving a two sentence excerpt, from an extended email exchange,
is unlikely to produce much light. Most DUers are well-aware of the importance of context

The first question regarding your excerpt will be whether or not it actually reflects any proposal for nefarious collusion between Wigley and Mann; if it actually does, the next question will be whether there was any actual action taken -- and if there were, the third question will be what the effect of such action was

As I understand the claims, Wigley and Mann believed von Storch thought a less rigorous scientific review was appropriate for highly controversial papers and published such papers even if the science was questionable; they objected to that editorial stance, and they were concerned that Saiers was willing to give papers of lower quality a favorable review. Saiers himself denies this. The emails are by now quite old, and Saiers stepped down from the position in question some time ago; he says his term expired and he was never pressured to leave. Thus, the authors of the email assert (relevant to the first question) that there was no nefarious plot, but simply concern for the scientific quality of publications; similarly, the subject of the email asserts (relevant to the third question) that he never experienced any nefarious plot

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. If these are legit hacked emails, then how come there are no pictures of their cats?
When people's email gets hacked, there are always photos of their kids and/or their cats in the mix.

Remember when Palin's illegal email account was hacked? There were photos of her kids in there.

Where are the scientists' baby photos?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. I'm sure they are a few...
but I doubt they are relevant or newsworthy unless the photos are of two headed baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
44. You mean, Andronex, that the e-mails were edited
to make them more "effective" and more "relevant," to help the publisher of the e-mails make a point. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I think that the anti-global-warming crowd is projecting its own methodology of producing biased, slanted pseudo-scientific literature on the honest scientific community. We shall see. There is just so much data supporting the idea that global warming exists and is the result of human activity that it is pretty silly at this point to try to fight the inevitable changes that must be adopted.

In quibbling over these e-mails, we should not forget the ultimate goal of the struggle against pollution and the controllable causes of global warming.

And we should not forget to keep our focus on energy independence through the development of safe alternatives to the energy sources we use today. These e-mails are simply another right-wing distraction from real issues. How silly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
34. I wonder how much the hackers were paid by Exxon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. CIA probably did it for them, gratis, as a "public service" eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #34
51. If the emails are legit
as opposed to made up or altered (and the scientists involved haven't tried to deny it) then I don't really care who blows the whistle or what they stand to gain.

Would you toss out similiar data obtained illegally about some scientist opposing MMGW if it was found the person who discovered it stood to benefit financially from the revelation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. The cited report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change is here:
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 04:21 PM by Ghost Dog
The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org / The Report is a 64 page .pdf downloadable from and/or readable online at this site.

This report covers the range of topics evaluated by Working Group I of the IPCC, namely the Physical Science Basis. This includes:

* an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations, as well as the global carbon cycle;

* coverage of the atmosphere, the land-surface, the oceans, and all of the major components of the cryosphere (land-ice, glaciers, ice shelves, sea-ice and permafrost);

* paleoclimate, extreme events, sea level, future projections, abrupt change and tipping points;

* separate boxes devoted to explaining some of the common misconceptions surrounding climate change science.

The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public.


A "media summary" provided is here: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/press.html and in part reads:

Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the worlds top climate scientists.

In a special report called The Copenhagen Diagnosis, the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.

The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was a year in the making, documents the key findings in climate change science since the publication of the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

The new evidence to have emerged includes:

* Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.

* Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

* Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.

* In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond todays levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.

To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states.

/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andronex Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
40. I want to thank everyone...
The level of civility has been above what I expected, as for the rest you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. goodbye!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Speaking of research... "Researcher: Artic Ice Thinning"
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 04:55 PM by Hissyspit
http://www.ktla.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-cn-canada-a...

Researcher says thick, multi-year Arctic sea ice that is home to polar bears is thinning
By Associated Press
2:41 PM PST, November 27, 2009
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) The permanent Arctic sea ice that is home to the world's polar bears and usually survives the summer has all but disappeared, a Canadian researcher said Friday.

University of Manitoba Arctic researcher David Barber said experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding, but the thick, multiyear frozen sheets have been replaced by thin ice that cannot support the weight of a polar bear.

"Polar bears are being restricted to a small fringe of where this multiyear sea ice is. As we went further and further north, we saw less and less polar bears because this ice wasn't even strong enough for the polar bears to stand on," said Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.

The deterioration has far-reaching consequences for the North and its iconic mammal. Polar bears that rely on the permanent ice to survive the summer have fewer and fewer places of refuge, Barber said.

MORE


For purely scientific and logic-based debunking of climate-change deniers misinformation, disinformation ,illogic and out-and-out lies, watch DUer greean3610's series of excellent videos on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
50. The science is settled! Dissent will not be tolerated
anyone who questions the established dogma or asks for such reactionary items as "materials and methods" or "uncorrected data" will be sent to reeducation camps, your ideology is suspect. Gaia has spoken!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. There's a difference between valuable dissent and logical fallacies, corporate-funded
disinformation campaigns, lies, delusional denial, & willful ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. What if the alleged scientists
are engaged in disinformation and active campaigns to silence and marginalize legitimate questions?

Sorry but whenever any scientist says "we have a consensus" when asked for their methodology or raw data, and that scientist sees that as a legitimate defense, my blood begins to boil.

Science is not "settled" by consensus, nor is it "settled" by refusing to release information or discrediting your opponents. You shouldn't even have opponents in an ideal world, only other researchers with a different hypothesis they are testing. These emails, the ones I've seen, portray a frighteningly unscientific mindset. That and the recent events with NIWA show that a great many people are needing to be fired, if nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. set up the strawman so that you can knock him down
Boil away, Jon:
"Science is not "settled" by consensus, nor is it "settled" by refusing to release information or discrediting your opponents. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. Not a strawman when based on facts
they did diagram how to destroy "opponents" and prevent them from being published, as well as "massaging" the data to explain "anomalies" not predicted by their models.

Sorry but when reality doesn't match your model it isn't reality that needs to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
71. Doesn't a crime have to have a motive?
What would be their motive? Why struggle against the inertia of over a century of industrialized civilization?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. What is the motive for research scientists
who have seen their budgets go up dramatically since global warming became a hot (no pun intended) issue?

When in our previous history have climate scientists received this degree of fame, power, and money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
91. Being a university professor is not the path to fame and riches.
I'm sure there are some of those reading this thread who can confirm that. No climate scientists get invited to the best parties. Climate scientists in general don't wear Armani suits. Kids don't trade climate scientist cards or put posters of climate scientists on their walls. I can't name ten climate scientists, of the top my head without Google. Can you? Hell, I doubt they even get an occasional free beer for their efforts. I guess 60k is year at from a good university is something to be proud of in this economy, but that ain't a fortune.

As to why they are scientists? Well, that's a deep question. I would say there are two big reasons for going through graduate school hell for half a decade to become a scientist: one is the joy of understanding something new for the first time, as Richard Feynan put it, "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out." There's something magical about the experience, and my skill with words in inadequate to properly describe it, so I leave that to more skilled mind than mine. Again, I recommend Feynman.

The second is that those scientists believe that they may be able to help humanity as a whole, and I imagine that this is the bigger of the two motivators for climate scientists. There are always going to be people that, when they hear of a great problem that it will bother them and tickle the back of their minds until they do something about it. One can easily imagine a physics, meteorology, or computational science graduate student seeing the problem of climate change in class or in the news and saying "You know, I could do something about that." And so they go about learning what we have knowledge about and what we don't and try to devise clever ways to move things from one category into the other, because we can't act without understanding. It's very similar to how people become political activists, except with more differential equations. :)

Also similar is that, once they are convinced that climate change is real, they go about trying to find a way to stop it. This means talking to politicians who have the power to regulate industrial emissions, and that means trying to find something, anything, that will let anyone, regardless of education, understand what is happening. Doesn't everyone like to believe that if we really are in serious peril that there would be a straightforward argument that could convince everyone, from the President of the US to the President of Exxon?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #91
110. Trust me on this,
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:21 PM by JonQ
finding a source for next years funding does interest researchers. It is not a given that you will have a job next year if you fail to produce results that are considered desirable. Not the way it should be, but the way it is.

Yes, I am in research and academia. No it is not the path to wealth. However, there are varying degrees of poverty. Researchers finding the "right" results in a particular political climate get to stay and do research and attain tenure, because they find ample funding. Contrary scientists often do not and get to move on.

Surely you can't deny this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #110
119. Sure, there's pressure for a younger guy not to be a squeaky wheel.
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:33 PM by sudopod
That hasn't stopped scientific progress in the past, though. That is also why we have a tenure system, so that experienced researchers CAN do daring, rebellious things. There are quite a few professors out there who say really crazy shit, but they survived to tenure, that shield is their reward for their hard work.

While there definitely is a bias toward the consensus in the scientific community, please remember for the last eight years that the powers that be tried very hard to kill research supporting anthropogenic climate change, among others. I suppose climate science did better than others, considering what happened to the stem cell guys and evolutionary biologists. It should be kept in mind that the external pressures on the scientific community don't all press in the same direction, and that the relevant funding sources and political pressures are not monolithic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. You say an interesting thing here:
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:36 PM by JonQ
"That hasn't stopped scientific progress in the past, though."

Correct, however historically people who go against the grain (even in academia) are pilloried for their efforts. Barbara Mcclintock comes to mind. They are deemed quacks, idiots, told to just sit down and shut up. If they're lucky they get to live long enough to be shown right, often not though. The way scientists who question the validity of MMGW are treated bears a striking resemblance to this treatment. Is it possible in time they will be vindicated? I don't know, maybe. Either way the embarrassing behavior of adherents to the established doctrine (tm) in the past suggests a more temperate and reasoned approach to dissent now.

"While there definitely is a bias toward the consensus in the scientific community, please remember for the last eight years that the powers that be tried very hard to kill research supporting anthropogenic climate change, among others."

Most of the research being referenced is coming from other countries. Our contribution, or lack therof is not a major detail.

"It should be kept in mind that the external pressures on the scientific community don't all press in the same direction, and that funding sources and political pressure is not monolithic."

But the pressure for the countries doing this research is pushing towards one conclusion. This concerns me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #123
125. Correct, however historically people who go against the grain are pilloried ...
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:57 PM by sudopod
Oftentimes, absolutely. However, this isn't a special failing of climate science, or even Science as an institution. That is a purely human phenomenon that happens in every field of human endeavor. Do you remember what happened to people who questioned the assault on Iraq? Ever try questioning transubstantiation in a Catholic Church? They have a saying for this in Japan: "The nail that sticks up gets hammered."

It should also be pointed out that if there was some sort of conclusive scientific evidence that MMGW was not real, then somewhere there is evidence for it in nature. It exists in reality and it is waiting to be found and no amount of conspiracy could cover it up for a very long time, especially in this age of instantaneous communication. Look at how quickly those emails traversed the world. If such evidence could be found, wouldn't the Bush-funded scientists have put something together over that eight year period to at least make a credible argument, based purely on collected data, rather than character assassination? Especially considering the very real financial and professional rewards that such evidence would have brought?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #125
233. Climate science is not special in this
Climate scientists are neither more corrupt, nor less corrupt than the average scientist for all other fields. Which means they are guilty of this, as every other field has it's problems as well. They are unique in that as a group they are receiving more attention, more funding and controlling more policy than probably any other group of researchers in history. I mean there aren't a whole lot of climatologists, but they are determining the debate on policy that will ultimately be worldwide in it's scope and affect trillions of dollars. That is what makes them unique. Researchers on fruit flies or N. crassa don't exactly have that clout.

"That is a purely human phenomenon that happens in every field of human endeavor. Do you remember what happened to people who questioned the assault on Iraq? Ever try questioning transubstantiation in a Catholic Church? They have a saying for this in Japan: "The nail that sticks up gets hammered." "

Which to me would suggest that we should back off on personal assaults on people who question this.

"It should also be pointed out that if there was some sort of conclusive scientific evidence that MMGW was not real, then somewhere there is evidence for it in nature. "

Not exactly. Global warming isn't something you can just measure and determine. Maybe if we had measurement stations every few feet, and had for the last few centuries and no human progress had been achieved during this period of time. But instead we have several thousand, spread around the globe, suffering from increasing human encroachment. Which is why the raw data is meaningless. It has to be adjusted to be meaningful. And within those adjustments there is plenty of wiggle room. For instance, you have a monitoring station at some place, has been there for years, then in the 40s a military base goes in next to it, all the asphault, planes taking off, removal of trees, etc affects the temperatures locally. In the 50s it is dismantled, in the 70s a powerplant is built upstream of a river that runs straight through that point. How do you account for all that?

Global warming, and mans contribution to it, is unfortunately not as straightforward as it is made to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beardown Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
102. Forest Gump was a genius.
Geez, you guys think that virtually the entire community of global climate scientists got together to plot and carry out a worldwide scale conspiracy and it's remained hidden until some casually written emails came to light? Or is easier to believe that they used poorly considered terms in their emails and that perhaps a few may have crossed ethical guidelines?

Where you all of you guys when Bush was lying us into Iraq and Graham was convincing us that no regulations would be good for the economy?


Forrest Gump was a genius in comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #102
115. It doesn't take a worldwide conspiracy
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:24 PM by JonQ
it takes a nudge in the right direction.

Claiming a worldwide conspiracy is suggested by this is a strawman.

Researchers aren't stupid, they notice when and why certain ones get funded and others don't. Pretty soon they get on board, or fall by the wayside because they fail to secure funding. And it only takes a few prestigious names to effectively blacklist so called "deniers" and thus eliminate contradiction.


So if you are an up and coming researcher who has seen a great many colleagues fail for lack of funding, or get shut out of publishing, while others who come to the "right" conclusions have ample funding and are published, well you don't exactly need some clandestine conspiracy to figure out what to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #115
197. Wow, these folks sure are powerful....
Yeah, this group of a half dozen people at one organization has the power to deny every other scientist and researcher on the planet tenure, jobs, funding, and the ability to publish their findings.

Are they members of the Illuminati as well?

Call it what you want, it's still a conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #197
238. Your post shows that you are ignorant on the subject
this is the Climatic Research Unit we're talking about. THE leading researchers in this area. Yes, when it comes to climate research they are powerful.

It's funny how eager people on here are to believe that any study showing something they don't like must be the result of some industry conspiracy, the scientists knew they had to get some particular answer to keep their funding. But those some people absolutely refuse that researchers they like might also be motivated by money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #238
243. Yawn... your hyperbole is getting tiring.
They remain one of many... but now that a few emails have surfaced, they've suddenly become the only ones that matter.

At least according to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #243
248. They are the leading one, of very few
you don't get this do you?

I suggest educating yourself on the subject. The internet is a great resource.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
168. The treatment of skeptics
Reminds me in some ways of the Catholic Church attacks on Galileo.

Either you accept the "faith" or you are ridiculed, threatened and ostracized.

Sorry, that ain't "science".

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and that doesn't make them heretics. The defenders of the "faith" need to step back and ask themselves why they are behaving like inquisitors.

Personally, I'm on the fence. I want all the raw data released as well as the models so other scientists can replicate the studies. Until that's done, they're simply not credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #168
236. But don't you know, the validity of a scientific theory
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 11:16 AM by JonQ
is determined by the faith of it's adherents and the vigor by which they pursue their enemies.

The best way to prove a theory in science is to round up and burn those who oppose it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #54
196. I'm sorry, which "alleged scinetists" are you talking about?
The ones who sent the emails? How many are there? A dozen or so?

And how many other climate scientists are there in the world? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Mountain out of a molehill. Dump their findings.

There's plenty of other research that comes to the same conclusions -- that global warming is happening and that we're causing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #196
237. These are the top scientists at
the CRU, whose findings are the driving force behind the kyoto and now copenhagen meetings. To throw their work out (and remember who don't know who all is involved, only those who have been caught) would be to throw out the entire theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #50
81. March! March!
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 06:38 PM by GMA
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #81
250. welcome to ignore
troll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #250
319. Troll, eh?
You might check out some of GMA's comments on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
96. Wrong. RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS will not be tolerated.
Because they are always lies. And THAT'S the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
162. Dissent is always tolerated...when there is data to back it up
Mindless naysaying and nitpicking is pointless and unproductive. That's especially true given the stakes. The denialists contribute almost nothing at all to the published science, and even less when those few publications are reviewed. However, they are quite productive on the blogs and in right-wing media.

There's a reason for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #162
265. And when the data in question has been shown to be falsified
and the originals discarded, that is in no way cause for concern?

"The denialists contribute almost nothing at all to the published science, and even less when those few publications are reviewed. "

It's almost as if the process of crowding them out of publications and blacklisting them detailed in these emails has been successful. Communists didn't have a whole lot to say in the US when McCarthy was in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #265
332. What data was falsified?
You're making shit up.

Not only are you making shit up, you are making up irrelevant, trivial shit since the emails cover one facility in one nation and it is established that CO2 is a GHG and that human activity is causing a dramatic increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, even if your made up shit was true its relevance would be germane only to the *amount* of warming still to come, not the fact that the warming will continue.

Clue. You should getz one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #50
249. another one
you show yourselves everyday you post, yet not smart enough to realize it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #249
264. I do!?!?! Oh no
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 12:59 PM by JonQ
well off to the reeducation camps for me. (I hope they have arts and crafts, I need a new lanyard for my keys)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
61. This is the most coordinated, "surge" like campaign I've seen. Pulling out all the stops.
And yet not very effective other than polluting the discourse. I agree with the poster upthread, if this is all they've got they'll only convince those desperately wanting to be convinced.
IOW, deniers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #61
136. +1.. that was their plan all along
sadly, a few of those people desperately wanting to be convinced are in congress, and they can set any meaningful action back further...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #136
228. Those congress critters have already been bought anyway.
The only ones buying into this "climategate" are the deniers who just need a pseudo-legitimate excuse to justify themselves. And their employees.

They don't seem to get that pushing this new "evidence" so hard doesn't make them look any less crackpot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
63. We just went through 8 years of absollute climate denials
in fact how soon we forget the payments given by the Bush government for essays written that are biased on the side that man has nothing to do with global warming. I can't remember if it was $1,000.00 dollars per essay or $10,000.00 but people were being paid to write papers saying that the earth was warming as a trend not for any man made reason.

I imagine these papers still abound. And if this OP is related to the recent program on NPR talking about emails and scientific magazines rejection of articles profiling the snowfall in the California mountains remaining relatively constant, as proof that Earths' warming trend is just a bunch of environmentalists cooking up hate for air pollution. Fact is they already have plenty of those articles. Plenty. All bought and paid for by Bush's climate change denial campaign of 8 fucking long years.

We all know air pollution equals money for corporations. And the carbon credits seem like a joke to me. ie...If I pollute less I can sell you my pollution credits so you can use them to pollute my share of the atmosphere.

The climate liars are just out to make environmental protectors out to be mad scientists who won't play fair and share the pages if Scientific Journals to publish bullshit about snowfall levels not diminishing, to claim corporate pollution doesn't harm the planet.

Rant over. :rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #63
138. don't forget about Chrichton's book
he is the one who really gave rise and legitimacy to the whole "worldwide scientific community/MSM conspiracy swindle cover-up" theory...i lost all respect for him after that stunt, especially when he accepted that "journalism" award from the Big Oil lobby groups...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrynXX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
67. wunderground.com (it's a weather site) has something about this too.
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 06:12 PM by PatrynXX
Explained it quite good.

Basically the same thing the Right has been doing for over half a century. Nothing new.

Went from tobacco, to the hole in the ozone layer to this.

Which clearly if what the right says is the truth then CSI's should be fired, there should be no jury because hey if there's a descent of some sort and their notes are released then lets free everyone who's guilty. do'h


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #67
211. Yes, that's an excellent piece of writing.
The concluding paragraphs provide much food for thought (and action):

...

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility

I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

/... http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #211
217. Second that.
Right on the button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #67
227. An interesting tidbit from your link:
An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

There seems to be a slew of dedicated deniers posting on DU lately. Their arguments are contrived to generate doubt by attacking the character of scientists instead of addressing data on climate change. Their tactics are obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
74. Also troubling is the code that's being analyzed.
As a geek who isn't invested in one side or the other. Some bad code, and bad analysis, which may end up being a bigger story than a the emails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. Yes, I think at the very least
the failure of our current models to account for recent changes means that the analysis is poor and the model does not work. Which means rethinking it entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #74
112. As a rule
scientists are terrible programmers. :/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #112
150. Maybe, but
I'm not sure I want trillions of dollars based on lousy programming. This is not some company messing with capital investors' money...

Hmmm...would you excuse scientists by saying they're poor mathematicians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #150
178. When I say bad programmers
I mean they don't use best practices. They don't organize things well, they don't comment well, they'll use GOTO unnecessarily, and so forth.

In my experience, though, it's hard to make a program that gives results that are only a little wrong, excepting dumb stuff like rounding errors. Moreover, this isn't the only model being used, since tens of thousands of other people are working on the same problem. Other people using different methods, arrive at the same results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
164. You do realize, don't you...
...that not all climatologists use the same model?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #164
266. The science is settled
and unequivocal. If someone has a different model that is proof that they are wrong because this is not up for debate or interpretation.

That's like saying not all christians defer to the bible, some use the koran or torah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #266
333. Stop your hand waving and produce a different model.
Cause there ain't one out there right now, bubba. In the highly unlikely event that you *do* develop such a model and then meet with dismissal, you just PM me, ok?

I suspect though that instead denialists will continue to nitpick, make crap up, and play the martyr. It's all out of the creationist and tobacco company handbooks. Guaranteed to keep roughly a third of the populace mesmerized and confused long enough to eke out another dose of hefty profits for the immoral and amoral fossil fuel industries.

Now prove me wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
83. If those emails are true, then the planet will suddenly be cooler?
The ice caps will stop melting?

The oceans will recede?

Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. The question isn't and never has been global warming
it's mans role in said global warming.

If we play a significant role then we can alter it, if we don't then we cannot. If the argument that we do control it is based on numbers that turn out to have been manipulated then that is a concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. The question fucking well is global warming.
Even in the unlikely case that we have diddly squat to do with it, it IS a serious issue, and all of our asses, including yours, are on the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. When we are creating legislature to address it then yes
it is about mans role in all this.

I hate earthquakes, I'd like it if they didn't happen. But if someone were to propose new policies to remove the threat of earthquakes by altering our behavior then I would be skeptical. Not because I don't believe in them, not because I want them to occur, but because I doubt any changes to our behavior will change their incidence rate.

So for legislature to address global warming we first need to decide if we are controlling it and if so, to what degree. Attempting to create laws to prevent something we have no hand in is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. Assuming we are helpless seems like a stupid and pessimistic approach.
Even if we are not at fault, there might be something useful we can do. Sticking your head in the sand may work for ostriches, but is that all that we can aspire to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Assuming we can control it
*if* the facts don't bear that out and creating vast, expensive regulatory networks to control it is useless too.

When the aztecs were around they were pretty sure they could control the weather via human sacrifices. I guess they were being pro-active and optimistic. They had a solution and they went about it the best way they could. Nevermind if that could actually be traced to weather patterns, they had a plan. All naysayers were simply sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to help. Want to starve when the corn harvest fails you selfish jerk? No? Well alright, give us some of your friends and family to sacrifice and we'll make sure that doesn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Your argument is all negative hypotheticals.
There are plenty of facts, no need to drag the illusions of the Aztecs into it. Dispute the facts. Prove that we have nothing to do with it, or admit that it is a fair issue for us to be concerned about. What is more important, the future history of the human race on the planet or the bottom line of a few corrupt and greedy corporations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. So a consensus has been reached, eh?
"Your argument is all negative hypotheticals."

When attempting to promote a theory, like say manmade global warming, the entire burden of proof is on those presenting it, not the audience to refute it. So all people who question it have to do is poke holes in that theory for it to no longer be a valid theory.

"Dispute the facts."

Facts are that some high profile and powerful researchers have been caught acting unethically. There research forms the basis of msot of our understanding of global warming and mans relation to it. And worse they've been caught successfully stifling counter arguments. in research this is all pretty damning stuff.

"Prove that we have nothing to do with it, or admit that it is a fair issue for us to be concerned about. "

Again, the people presenting the theory have to disprove it. Newton didn't say "I have a theory of gravity, it's right, disprove it or admit that I am right!". He presented evidence.

"What is more important, the future history of the human race on the planet or the bottom line of a few corrupt and greedy corporations?"

Again, you are presupposing that humans are to blame. What's more important, our whole civilization starving, or some peasant wanting to selfishly hold on to his internal organs? The argument only works if the correlation can be shown to be causative, which is the whole argument, which is still undecided, so you're skipping a few steps. You've already assumed it is right and are unwilling to hear any evidence to the contrary. That is religion my friend, not science. Which is fine for the hoi polloi, I'm not disappointed or surprised. But I expected better from scientists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #106
111. So you have no facts, eh?
Scientific truth derives from observation, not from consensus, not from the personal integrity of particular scientists, but from observational facts. It is not a fact that anybody has been caught, it is not a fact that they have acted unethically, those are opinions, not facts. So you have no facts. Do you even read what you write:

"Again, the people presenting the theory have to disprove it."

What the fuck does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #111
118. You seem awfully emotional over what should be a dispassionate point
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:29 PM by JonQ
"Scientific truth derives from observation, not from consensus, not from the personal integrity of particular scientists, but from observational facts. It is not a fact that anybody has been caught, it is not a fact that they have acted unethically, those are opinions, not facts. So you have no facts. Do you even read what you write"

And if it could be shown that the scientists involved are not accurately observing, and are putting their own slant on things? Surely you understand it's not as simple as checking a thermometer every year for the last 100 years? Well maybe you don't. Actually we are discussing hundreds of temperature points spread around the globe, many of which have been moved or have being encroached upon by urban sprawl (this raises temps in case you didn't know). All this requires adjustments be made. Not a problem necessarily, but open to a great deal of shall we say interpretation? Which points are outliers to be thrown out, which are relevant? Which need to be adjusted to account for local variances? Which can be determined to have been poorly located and thus discarded?

If you think this is straightforward observation with no interpretation then you do not understand much about the subject. Merely presenting the data as it is would be jibberish without interpretation (due to the reasons I mentioned and others). And in that interpretation there is ample room for disagreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #118
128. You seem to be painting with a very broad brush.
"And if it could be shown that the scientists involved are not accurately observing, and are putting their own slant on things? "

Which scientists? Every last one of them, or the few who had their emails stolen?

Go ahead, toss out the findings of those scientists. I guarantee you there are hundreds more who'll give you the same or similar data.

Indicting all of science because of a few emails is not very scientific, IMHO...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. Oh there you go again, just like me being all emotional and stuff.
:sarcasm:

One straw man, red herring, or ad hominem after another, that's all he's got, and he accuses OTHER people of being gullible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #133
240. You are gullible
You have decided one answer is right and now cling to it regardless of any other evidence. Essentially this is a religion to some people.

It is frightening that religious fanatics are setting our policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #240
255. Well, I'm not buying your bullshit, so how gullible can I really be? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #255
257. It's not "my" anything
Which goes back to my earlier argument, you must make this into some personal attack on your faith, rather than the natural process by which science is reviewed.

True/false, evidence has been presented showing our current models may be at best incomplete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #257
259. You wrote it, are writing it, here, now, yes?
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 12:44 PM by bemildred
If it does not belong to you, who does it belong to? Did you "borrow" it somewhere?

All models are incomplete, that is the whole point of a model, it's relatively simple, so what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #259
261. You don't understand how scientific reviews work
that's not my fault. If any data point used in making a mathematical model is shown to be falsified or just wrong then the entire model can no longer be accepted as accurate. That's just the way it works.

"If it does not belong to you, who does it belong to? Did you "borrow" it somewhere?"

It isn't my argument because it isn't an argument. The data appears to have been falsified, there is no argument on that. Anymore than saying it is 74 degrees outside my house is "my" argument, or an argument at all. It is a statement of fact.

"All models are incomplete, that is the whole point of a model, it's relatively simple, so what?"

That's why they have an error estimate (which thusfar has been ignored). But models also require accurate information to form them otherwise they are worthless, correct? You can certainly come up with a model to explain any data set, even a falsified one. That doesn't mean it is applicable to real life.

And you didn't answer my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #261
269. I used to do sims and models for a living.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 01:17 PM by bemildred
I have a bachelors degree in math and a masters in computer science. You don't know squat about what I know about "how scientific reviews work". You just seem to have a "faith based" position that anyone that disagrees with you must be irrational or something. That seems like a very "incomplete model" to me.

In order:

"that's not my fault. If any data point used in making a mathematical model is shown to be falsified or just wrong then the entire model can no longer be accepted as accurate. That's just the way it works."

All models are "inaccurate", as I already pointed out, the question is whether they are useful or not.

It isn't my argument because it isn't an argument. The data appears to have been falsified, there is no argument on that. Anymore than saying it is 74 degrees outside my house is "my" argument, or an argument at all. It is a statement of fact.

I didn't say it was an argument, I said it was "bullshit". Calling it an argument would be generous. It is more like a windstorm of emotional accusations.

That's why they have an error estimate (which thusfar has been ignored). But models also require accurate information to form them otherwise they are worthless, correct? You can certainly come up with a model to explain any data set, even a falsified one. That doesn't mean it is applicable to real life.

Error estimates apply to observations, not models. Whether models are useful of not depends on whether they are useful predictors of observations. Models in general are not based on any real world data inputs at all, real world information may be used to design and test the models, but it is not the basis on which a model operates. Models operate by applying algorithms and computations to an internal state description, which is a data set of sorts, but not necessarily the result of some observation, it can be completely made up. Models do not observe. Sometimes the entire point of a model is that you can play with things that you can't do in the real world, e.g. "testing" weapons or theorizing about what happens when a supernova goes off. Data inputs to a model are generally about setting initial conditions, not deciding what to do next. Data sets do not "explain" models, data sets are used to test models. If you test a model with a bad data set, what you get is an invalid test of the model, not an invalid model.

Have a nice day.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #269
271. You want to know how I know you don't understand what you're arguing?
It's when you stated unequivocally that mathematical models do not have error estimate associated with them. That's pretty basic stuff, like not knowing how to get an average.


"Data sets do not "explain" models, data sets are used to test models. If you test a model with a bad data set, what you get is an invalid test of the model, not an invalid model."

Wow, just wow. Models are built around data sets, to explain them (honestly, where do you think they come from?). If the model fails to explain real world results then it is not a useful model for the real world. I'm sorry but you kind of need a science background to get this. To us it's fairly intuitive, but I guess hard to explain to laypeople.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #271
274. LOL. People make models up, that's where they come from.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 02:03 PM by bemildred
Do you think they are hatched from eggs or something? They self-generate if you collect enough data?

I repeat, mathematical models do not have error estimates associated with them, the math is always precise, error estimates are an attribute of observations, experiments, the real world. Even the mathematical theory of error is precise as mathematics. There is no error estimate in Newton's equations, the error estimate comes in guessing how far your observations will vary from what Newton says, or what the "true value" is, and that is an attribute of your observation methods, not the model, not the equations.

Darwin invented the theory of evolution to explain the data he had, not the other way around. Data does not generate theory, people generate theory. Then you can use observational data to test theory, but if you use bad data to test theory, all you have is an invalid test of theory. To get a valid test of theory, you have to use good data, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #274
275. Good, people make models
now what are they based on? Complete conjecture, or existing information?


"Darwin invented the theory of evolution to explain the data he had, not the other way around. "

So he had preexisting data that he formed his theory around, he didn't simply generate it from nothing? You see, you're starting to get it, however slowly.

Now, if you come up with some theory, test it, find that the data does not support it do you A) reconsider your theory, or B) assume the data must be flawed, throw it out and make up new data that supports your theory? Well, I know what you would do, but what would a responsible scientist do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #275
277. The validity of Darwin's theory does not rest on what he knew when he formed it.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 02:15 PM by bemildred
Or how he formed it, or whatever, it stands or fails on its own. He gets credit for thinking it up, but its value does not rest on him. Its value lies in its utility in allowing us to explain what we observe, and to speculate about what will be observed.

Observations do not explain, people explain. Observations are just what you get when you observe.

Do you really think you can perform a valid test of theory with bad observations, fake data? The test of a climate model is whether it agrees with valid climate observations, no? Whether it agrees or disagrees with bad data means squat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #277
278. Sigh, I was wrong you aren't getting this
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 02:22 PM by JonQ
where do you think their very complicated mathematical model came from if not computations involving existing data sets?


Here, I'll get outside verification on this:

Eykhoff (1974) defined a mathematical model as 'a representation of the essential aspects of an existing system (or a system to be constructed) which presents knowledge of that system in usable form'.<1>

System: System (from Latin systēma, in turn from Greek σύστημα systēma) is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole.

So without those interacting entities (data points) what do you have? How do you describe a system without knowledge of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #278
279. I don't care "where it comes from".
I told you where it comes from, they made it up, based on whatever they knew at the time, which is all irrelevant to the question of whether it is a good model or not.

The question is whether it agrees with observation. You cannot test that with a bad data set, and you cannot test that with the personal history of the people that made the model.

It's not that I don't get "this", I just think it is a load of irrational crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #279
281. Bingo, you finally admitted it
you don't care about the basis so long as it says what you want to hear.

"I told you where it comes from, they made it up, based on whatever they knew at the time, "

Which is called existing data points, which if flawed are not going to make a very happy model.


"which is all irrelevant to the question of whether it is a good model or not."

If it relies on false data it is not a good model. How is this complicated?

"The question is whether it agrees with observation. You cannot test that with a bad data set, and you cannot test that with the personal history of the people that made the model."

Sure you can, it was built around a bad data set so why stop now?

Question: do you believe working to silence critics, manipulate data and throw out evidence are the marks of good or bad science?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #281
282. So you don't care about observation, it is the moral stature or the scientist that matters?
And if the author is a moral paragon, then his theory must be good? But if he is guilty of moral turpitude, then his theory must be wrong? I must say this is an interesting view of what "science" is.

"Many true words have been spoken through false teeth."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #282
285. Nope, that is gibberish
not sure where you get any of that.

"And if the author is a moral paragon, then his theory must be good? But if he is guilty of moral turpitude, then his theory must be wrong? I must say this is an interesting view of what "science" is."


No doubt you can find instances where I have used moral arguments against this theory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #285
286. Well, I'm glad you finally admitted it:
"Question: do you believe working to silence critics, manipulate data and throw out evidence are the marks of good or bad science?"

From the post just above up there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #286
287. Huh? What language are you speaking
You have yet to answer my questions or respond honestly. You made up some ridiculous argument and tried to put it in my mouth. You express a disturbing lack of understanding of scientific procedure. I'm not sure where you are coming from, you seem all over the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #287
289. That's it, play dumb, admit incomprehension, safer that way.
:rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #289
290. You make comments that make no sense
in defense of a subject you know nothing about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #290
294. You can't understand what I said, but you are Mr Science Wizard?
You attack these scientists personally, you cast aspersions on their motives and methods, and you think that discredits their theories? And then you claim incomprehension when I point it out? What is this, selective dumbness?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #294
298. I have attacked their actions
which have shown to be inappropriate. I could care less if they all go home get drunk and beat their wives for this discussion the science is either valid or it isn't.


Saying the science is invalid because they have shredded data, manipulated their published numbers incorrectly and worked to prevent counter views from being expressed is a direct critique of the value of the theory in it's entirety. The scientists moral failings are irrelevent. But you knew that, this was an attempt to turn the conversation a different way because you weren't doing very well.

Don't try that again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #298
300. So if I say you have shredded data, manipulated your published numbers incorrectly
and worked to prevent counter views from being expressed, is that a direct critique of the value of all your theories in their entirety?

If so, consider your theories to have been demolished. I had no idea it was so easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #300
302. If they have done those things, as they seem to have
then the theory based around the falsified data and defended by a "a lack of counter argument" cannot be sustained.

How are you not understanding this? They falsified data it seems, and destroyed it when necessary. That is both a reflection on their merits as individuals (irrelevant though) and a condemnation of their work. They are bad scientists, that is obvious, and because they are bad scientists their conclusions are suspect.

It's actually very simple, most everyone else gets it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #302
303. There is no lack of counter-argument on global climate change, as you so ably demonstrate.
Nobody has shown that they falsified data.
Nobody has shown they destroyed data because it was "necessary".
You certainly are condemning their work.
Nobody has shown that they are bad scientists.
All conclusions, including yours, are suspect.
I am not "most everyone", nor do I care to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #303
305. They detailed
how to keep contrary views from being published. Without being published in a scientific journal the information may as well not exist. That's called censorship and it doesn't help the process.

"Nobody has shown that they falsified data."

Except by their own admission.

"Nobody has shown they destroyed data because it was "necessary"."

You're right on that, they conveniently had info "disappear" in the middle of a scandal regarding said data after they were ordered to release it. Surely nothing out of the ordinary there. ;-)

"You certainly are condemning their work."

Their work should be condemned, even by others who still support their theories. They made many egregious errors and behaved unprofessionally.

"Nobody has shown that they are bad scientists."

Except for all that data manipulation no. Like saying "except for all the murdering nobody could prove dahmer was a bad guy". That's a big "except".

"All conclusions, including yours, are suspect."

Wrong. Their conclusions are apparently above question. Handed down from on high by gaia herself. That's why you get attacked if you question them, because you hate the earth.

Snark aside you'll note that I never said there is no such thing as man made global warming, merely that their data can no longer be trusted to conclude either way, so I have not make a conclusive statement in that regard.

"I am not "most everyone", nor do I care to be."

Apparently not.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #305
307. Do show me where they have admitted to falsifying data.
The tapes were thrown out in the 1980s, that's what they say, way before the current "scandal".
All scientists manipulate data, it is sort of what one does when one is a scientist.
Indeed not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #307
308. You have not read the entire email scandal?
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 05:57 PM by JonQ
Really?

"All scientists manipulate data, it is sort of what one does when one is a scientist."

Indeed. Presenting that data and explaining how you manipulated it is also part of being a scientist. They are really good at that first bit, not so good on the second.

Take a step back and look at what you are defending, trying to forget your bias. We are basing worldwide initiatives and ultimately trillions of dollars on the work of a handful of scientists whose work is now shown to be suspect and can no longer be relied on. That does not concern you in the least?

If they could show that wearing sandals conclusively causes global warming I'd say great, ban sandals. But I would like to be sure first, then work on getting rid of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #308
309. Do show me where they admitted falsifying data.
In their own words ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #309
311. Generally people engaged in falsifying data
don't come out and state in an email "hey ted, I was falsifying some data and I was wondering if I could borrow your data falsifyer (technical term), to falsify some data, kthxbye".

What we do have are incidents like this:
Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. Hes not in at the moment minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.


Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K backI think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to contain the putative MWP, even if we dont yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?

I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !

And so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #311
312. So they never admitted it, you made that up.
How can I trust you now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #312
323. They did admit it
you didn't read the excerpts I posted did you?

Sigh, this is getting dull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #309
327. Read HARRY_READ_ME0.txt - your wish has come true
Surely you believe in the Great Books theory of learning? You know, going to the source? You'll be on the edge of your chair trying to hold in the pee. ;)

http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

Here are a couple of excerpts to set the tone. No.98 has what you're looking for. Lots more where that came from (237 pp). I haven't even gotten through half of it yet. Then ask yourself, what are the chances all the laundry is now out on the clothesline? heh heh B.F.F.Z.

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)


lol Bemildred, these fuckers would steal your hubcaps while you were inside the church preaching to the lost lambs. :-D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #327
337. I used to do that for a living.
Edited on Mon Nov-30-09 06:24 AM by bemildred
Aside from the whiney self-importance of the DBA there, who is NOT the fellows asserted to have admitted to falsifying data, it all sounds like an excellent case for throwing the data out, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #337
338. You used to make people who work for you take the blame? ;)
Truly Nixonian, in multiple dimensions. :-D

The poor sap database guy of course never discussed any of his facepalm discoveries with his paymasters, never notified The Scientists of the serial rotten cruft in the "data," never took any direction from them or even mentioned it to them when he started making data up so the sclerotic code would run, started hard-coding variables, started manually patching subroutines that produced output errors so that they just kept running in silent mode.

Because The Scientists were at a conference in New Zealand or Geneva or somesuch for three years and he forgot his email password anyway and besides the dog ate the call button off the cellphone.

Somehow these details escaped the esteemed Peerage who blessed the published results with Double Prime Platinum Certified Kosher Supertits status, their highest ISO-equivalent standard. (Why use actual ISO standards when you get frequent flier miles with your own brand?)

I spent ten years creating and maintaining a code base myself. I feel that guy's pain. I also feel something from his bosses. I'll need toilet paper to wipe it off.

As for the case to be made for throwing out the raw data: don't worry, turns out they already did that. It was an innocent little slip-up. Honest Injun. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #128
239. How about the few leading ones
who are directing policy?

"Go ahead, toss out the findings of those scientists. I guarantee you there are hundreds more who'll give you the same or similar data. "

Based on what? Your personal feelings?

"Indicting all of science because of a few emails is not very scientific, IMHO..."

Indeed. Who has done that? All of science? So like everything since the invention of fire (maybe even that)?

I would however argue that it is very scientific to question the data collected by individuals shown to be manipulating said data. And when they are the major authors of an entire theory, their data and conclusions being the basis for the theory in fact, well that theory now becomes suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unabelladonna Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #93
181. thank you.
for stating everything i feel about "climate change". the absolute conceit to think we can change weather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #181
183. Try looking up "carbon isotope balance" - it that's not all too "mainstream" for you
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #183
241. C02 is actually
a fairly minor part of the greenhouse effect. But you already knew that ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #181
185. Huh... more of the denialist language;
You see, only someone truly ignorant of the issue conflates 'climate' with 'weather'.

Do a little math; We've been adding a cumulative 1%-3% CO2 per year over and above the Earth's natural reuptake cycle for at least 50 years. A fact that is not in dispute. Another fact; CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain greater amounts of heat. More CO2 means more heat. Fact; Heat=Energy.

I know that adding facts together is tricky for some folks, but try it.

We've been cumulatively adding extra energy to the climate for over a century.

If you cannot grasp what that means, then I'm left with only one conclusion about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #185
242. That fails to explain
how temperatures have flatlined, then fallen recently while C02 continues to go up.

At best our current models are incomplete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Night Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #242
329. Its seems to me that if scientists are conspiring to trick people into thinking that...
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 11:25 PM by The Night Owl
...Earth is getting hotter then they're shooting themselves in the foot with all these graphs showing that temperatures have, as you put it, flatlined. Some conspiracy, huh?

Anyway, I guess I missed the paper arguing that ever increasing levels of CO2 should negate all temperature variability. Perhaps this is because that paper exists only in your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #181
192. We already have changed the weather
If you actually bothered to read up on the subject, you'd realize that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #86
98. We're not responsible, it's the darn Sun's fault!
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:00 PM by tinrobot
Denialist talk if I ever heard it.

Here's a thought. Suppose the Sun is adding to the warming we're creating. All that means is that we're twice as screwed. Not only do we have stop the warming we're creating, we have to find a way to mitigate the effects of Solar activity.

Either way, we have to own up to our responsibility to the planet and our future generations. We must change our carbon-belching ways or perish. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. See this is what I'm talking about
"Denialist talk" = heretic.

"All that means is that we're twice as screwed." = eternal damnation

"Not only do we have stop the warming we're creating, we have to find a way to mitigate the effects of Solar activity." = holy crusade!

"We must change our carbon-belching ways or perish. " = repent and be saved, burn if you carry on with your wicked ways.




This is a religion to some people when it ought to be science.

I'm not arguing either way that it is or is not our fault. Merely that the science has been shown to be tainted by typical human failings, so we need to fire some people and reevaluate our models, data, and assumptions to make sure everything is right. Attacking people who point this out, or those who catch researchers making errors, or simply asking questions is not the hallmark of great science.

You'd think I tried to argue that the earth was not the center of the universe in medieval times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #103
114. "Make sure everything is right."
In other words - "let's study this some more"

Typical stalling tactics.

The science is in. I agree these particular scientists should go, but for every one of them, there's a few thousand more who can give you good data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #114
120. We have a consensus!
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:31 PM by JonQ
The time for thinking and research is over, now is the time for action!

Yes yes very exciting. Much more so than all those nerds with their numbers and whatnot.

Out of curiosity can you think of one other area of research where one could say "no more stalling with these questions regarding the validity of my methods or data, we know the answer now let's move on"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #120
126. The validity of the data is not in question.
The 'nerds' spoke 10-20 years ago, they know the answer.

Sorry you're not listening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #126
166. Actually, it is, given that the CRU scientists have now admitted they lost it.
For many years, they have only shown their results, and would not share the raw data.

Now we learn that it is gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #166
190. So what's the big deal? Throw out the bad data.
Those few people are a mere drop in a bucket compared to many thousands of respected scientists across the world doing research on climate change every single day. Those thousands have done plenty of research and have loads of data to support man-made global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #190
199. You just said the validity of the data is not in question.
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 01:15 AM by Psephos
But now you abandoned that as though you never said it and have thrown forth another argument.

This is an important subject and shouldn't be changed.

It's one thing if the scientists are corrupt - that doesn't necessarily invalidate their science. But if the data is corrupt, then a large edifice of derivative works that depend either directly or indirectly upon the validity of the global signal datasets will at minimum require reworking. That will be a monumental amount of work and expense. (The modeling and processing code underlying the major findings is a nightmare out of the movie Brazil. It cannot even produce the same results that were published when it's run on the same data. Go here and start reading the file HARRY_READ_ME.TXT if you haven't. http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html )

The damage this will do in the political sphere is incalculable. These scientists, whose work directly underlies and informs the I.P.C.C. reports (as in, they are some of the principal contributors and editors of it) have harmed public trust in the reports, perhaps fatally. Word of their subterfuge and evasions has barely started to penetrate the mainstream public. It will burn as rapidly there as it has through the blogs in the first week. The I.P.C.C. reports are those that have been loudly proclaimed by politicians and advocates around the world as "settled science." As "beyond debate." As "case closed." As in: the I.P.C.C. shared the Nobel with Gore two years ago. A lot of people who have questioned all that in the past are rubbing their hands together in anticipation, and remembering all the nasty names they've been called for daring doubt that the science was actually settled. This is Fitzmas on steroids for them.

I just read that "ClimateGate" has surpassed "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" in number of Google search requests in the past two days. It's hard to imagine a more potent cache of ammo one could give political opponents of legislation and policy to address AGW. The public will not decide this on a careful reading of esoteric science. They will decide it the same way they judged Enron: on a quick perception that the organization was rotten from the inside, and that the books were cooked. That judgment will be based on the character of the people involved and their self-documentation of their misdeeds, which any fool can read for herself.

edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #199
204. I wasn't talking about that small group of people
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 01:50 AM by tinrobot
I said the 'nerds' spoke 10-20 years ago.

By that, I was talking about the the massive amounts of data gathered over the decades by many scientists (i.e. nerds) and their conclusions. It has invariably pointed to the same conclusion for well over a decade -- that we are causing global warming and it's accelerating.

You can continue to gripe about those few people and their stolen emails if you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #204
260. The data is indisputable
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 12:44 PM by JonQ
throw out the bad data and move on.

Scientists never lie or make mistakes.

Well these guys did but ignore them.

Only the ones who haven't been caught are above reproach, the rest are insignificant outliers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #190
246. I thought the science was settled?
They never make mistakes, no data is ever wrong, so why throw out "bad data"? That would imply there is bad data, which is impossible and a lie spread by exxon.

Ahahahaha, keep moving that goal post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #86
165. The role of man is established
It's us...unless you have some other cause. In that unlikely case you should pass it on to climatologists at your earliest possible convenience. But be aware that everything else that has been proposed has been eliminated. Also be aware that what you propose has to both warm and cool the Earth simultaneously. The warming is measured. But you'd have to come up with something that counteracted the greenhouse effect of CO2 simultaneously.

Good luck with that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #165
245. No . . it . . . isn't
"It's us...unless you have some other cause. "

The spring rains come because we sacrifice virgins, unless you can find some other cause. Science doesn't work that way, you can't declare something then demand others disprove you. You're thinking of religion.

"But be aware that everything else that has been proposed has been eliminated. "

Not . . . it . . . hasn't.

"Also be aware that what you propose has to both warm and cool the Earth simultaneously. The warming is measured. But you'd have to come up with something that counteracted the greenhouse effect of CO2 simultaneously."

Again, and I can't stress this enough, it is up to those presenting the theory to prove it, not for everyone else to disprove it.

And can you explain how c02 levels have been going steadily up, but temperature has been fluctuating wildly and even declining in the last decade? The science is settled, it's all us and it's all C02, so how does that work?

Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #245
334. That's some mighty fine denialism there, JonQ
You have encapsulated denialism in one short post. You claim that man-made CO2 isn't the cause...yet you propose no other mechanism...despite the fact that CO2 fits the role as the primary cause to a "t." Your word is supposed to be sufficient to overturn decades of research by thousands of competent scientists. I think any rational person with basic critical thinking skills is going to laugh at you, as well they should.

"Again, and I can't stress this enough, it is up to those presenting the theory to prove it, not for everyone else to disprove it"

No, it is up those presenting a theory to *support* it. Proof is a mathematical/logical sort of a deal. AGW is amply supported in the scientific literature. What's more it is supported by multiple lines of evidence. It is small wonder that it is accepted by those qualified to properly analyze the evidence.

It is also not up to science to convince each individual personally of the validity of a scientific claim. The fact that you dislike AGW for some personal reason has zero to do with the fact that AGW is occurring. Either get Zen with it or don't. It makes not a scrap of difference to those of us in the fact-based world.

"And can you explain how c02 levels have been going steadily up, but temperature has been fluctuating wildly and even declining in the last decade? The science is settled, it's all us and it's all C02, so how does that work?

I'm sure that in your mind those questions were killers. Unfortunately, your questions only highlight your ignorance of the subject. To answer your questions, the *weather* is not the climate. Even so, the warming is still evident if you take reality into account. Given 2008's low solar output (TSI) and a La Nina, it was still one of the ten warmest years on record. So maybe you should explain that without invoking AGW?

CO2 the *only* thing that drives climate, let alone weather.

Now run along and try to think of another distraction or find another talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #86
254. Said very well what I expressed more awkwardly.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
audas Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
84. The skeptics have a
have a well documented trail of deliberate, contrived policy of creating doubt to further their cause -
From the Lavosiere group to senator inhoffe - this is well documented, there are MANY excellent pieces of literature on it including a great book called the Republican war on science.

In contrast a dodgey post on a russian website of hacked emails taken out of context is all the evidence available to establish the myth of the AGW conspiracy - I think this speaks for itself.

Case closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #84
315. Oh, please.
That's right, just go after those terrible Republicans--that's the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #315
320. Interesting comeback
I'm gonna remember it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #84
324. Yeah, I heard they had conspired
to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing and discrediting their works through personal attacks, destroying data sets and refusing to release or discuss their methods. Can you imagine what kind of people would stoop so low just to "prove" their crazy theories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
87. Well, attack the messenger is not a new strategy.
In terms of scientific evidence, the intentions of the writers of emails, any emails, mean squat. And anyone who prefers to talk about the intentions of writers of emails rather than the evidence may be assumed to be looking for something easier to argue about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
94. It stinked to high heaven from the start
but they have been able to already sink it into the public mind--such is the "Big Lie", that was the whole point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SimonBolivar Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
95. Another apocalypse?
Every apocalyptic prediction in the history of the world has proven (obviously) to have been wrong. I don't think climate change is any different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. Tell that to the people of Easter Island.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #95
117. The world won't end. It will most certainly get warmer.
Whether or not that's something the majority of human life will find beneficial, well, I guess we'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. It may not end for us.
Bangladesh, they won't be so lucky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #95
167. Every one?
How do you know?

But even if that's true, it doesn't follow that because previous such predictions have failed, ALL will fail.

And how many previous apocalyptic predictions were based on established science? Any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
184. Ooh, look - another 3-post denialist!
Guess that takes care of all that "global warming", huh?

You people are fucking pathetic.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #95
189. It's called 'If -> then' logic.
"If" we launch a nuclear strike on the USSR, "Then" most life on Earth will be annihilated.

"If" we continue to add energy to the Earth's climate, "Then" we will fuck it up somehow... badly.


Your problem, like all the denialists, is that you cannot distinguish between the distillations of science and exhortations of religion and mysticism.

The former utilizes the study of facts and reality, the latter is based on intuition and insanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
116. what counts is that limbaugh and sons have 1000 radio stations
for coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition to intimidate any republicans and red state blue dogs that might have been on the line.

that's what really counts- enabling and intimidating politicians with flying packs of irrational flat earther dittohead screamers

environmental groups would do well to picket the main limbaugh megastions during the summit- that's where the heavy lifting is done on the obstruction. people who think this is going to play out in the MSM between the flat earthers and rational environmentalists are making a mistake. this week limbaugh did 3 straight days that i know of on this idiocy and some of his work seems to be paying off with the irrational denialists coming out of the woodwork, their ignorance enabled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #116
188. Good point.
Who knew that we had so many global warming deniers on DU? And you're right, I bet a lot of them get it straight from the horse's ass, Rush Limbaugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
127. The e-mails make no difference
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 07:58 PM by bhikkhu
To some extent, none of the scientists make any difference either, and the data can speak for itself without assistance. We have - from virtually all over the planet - good temperature data going back 150 years, good tree ring data going back 5000+ years, ice cores going back as far as 700,000 years, and sea bed sediments going back about 200 million years. Oddly enough, they tell a pretty coherent and consistent story.


The only real controversy I've heard is that we have had 3 years or so of cooler weather than current models predicted. Its the weather - short-term, there is always variability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
139. well the target and the timing of the hack are certainly not a random coincidence
this has been a well-coordinated campaign from the start; from the theft of the info, to the careful parsing and selective excerpts, to the way it was distributed to the media and similar-thinking congressmen...to say nothing about the trolling of message boards (every time an update of this story is posted in LBN or GD, my ignore list grows by 10 at least...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #139
142. Why are the trolls showing up?
What do they think they'll accomplish by posting their nonsense on DU? I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #142
143. dunno...
but fall/winter tends to bring a bigger surge than usual, especially during even-numbered years...

the clumsy ones are no worry -- they usually never make it past 80-100 posts....but the ones who know how to dance on the line without crossing it...those are the ones to worry about...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #142
194. They get paid by the post.
I'm thinking of a career change. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #194
207. That's my guess. Or they are tools.
Easy work, no commute, set your own pace. Could be a good job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GMA Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #207
256. Oh, man--you hit it on the head.
Getting paid by the post to argue on du. Now there's a career for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #207
273. But what about health insurance, 401K, sick leave, and so on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #194
272. That explains those e-mails I get, claiming
I can make money from online posting. I thought they were just financial scams, but they're even worse than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #142
208. Yes, it rather un-nerves me too...DU is really not all that important...why this concerted invasion?
I mean, really, what does DU matter? I've always taken the "paid posters" notion with a grain of salt - something not impossible, but not likely. But this invasion - which was going on before I left for a Thanksgiving trip and now still when I've returned - seems so...peculiar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
144. Look, I'm certainly not a scientist....
......all I know is that if Jobs over at Apple used they same 'settled science' nonsense in developing their computer, I would be typing this on the Mac iEtch-A-Sketch. And still there would be people here who would say, 'stop bitching, it's settled science and this is the best you will ever get because Jobs says so.'

yep. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #144
149. Steve Jobs is using a settled science.
Which is why your NOT typing on a etch a sketch. While technology changes, the basic fundamentals of computer science doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #149
201. Perhaps a better analogy would be medicine
We might not scientifically know what creates certain diseases, but we still treat the patients of those diseases to the best of our ability. We don't wait until the science is "settled" when lives are at stake.

Same goes for climate change. We don't know everything, but we know enough to know we're causing it. Do we wait until the science is "settled" or do we act on what we know today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #144
195. No, you're not.
There's no comparison between advances in computer technology and the fundamental science of climate.

One is the discovery of new ways to make computers, the other is the study of an existing system an our influence upon it.

Please, think.

Then post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #195
198. I have used the sarcasim emoticon....
...but enough fooling around, basic scientific research MUST have a complete paper trail back to the original data, otherwise, any result derived MUST be considered suspect. There has been little to no transparency to original data and methodology used to 'adjust' the data for variations or missing data on major research papers being used to produce policy. If you cannot produce (or refuse to as Mann and others have done) the original, raw data then it cannot be checked independently and MUST be considered suspect. That is so basic to true scientific research as to not even be questionable by anyone. Produce the raw data and any programming adjustments used to produce the final result or don't even bother telling me or anyone what you think you have. Settled science isn't settled until it can be verified independently. Why is that so hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #198
200. Tens of thousands of scientists
have performed 'independent verification'.

It's called the 'peer review process', and through it, which includes meticulous consideration of raw data, the accuracy of the conclusions are verified.

Please, demonstrate a modicum of deliberation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #200
210. I think the point is that there has not been independent verification of these studies:
The whole basis of modern science is independent verification, but independent verification of the work of these guys can't be done because they refuse to release the underlying data of their work. That is the troubling part of these emails. These guys are launching an attack at the very heart of science by conspiring to not have to release the data.

That is the part that is troubling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #210
213. What are you talking about?
Independent verification of whom? The guys in the OP based their report on other published work, there is no "underlying data" for their report:

'The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.'

Anyone can go and look up the papers and read them for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #213
216. No, you are simply incorrect
How to bring in hundreds of different data sets into one overall view of climate is a very complicated procedure. The way in which that is done will affect the overall results.

So these guys gather up all this data, and perform endless contortions of the data. Other scientists want to know what contortions were done to the data, and these guys refuse to release it.

You have obviously not read these emails. In the emails these guys go to great lengths to refuse to release data, and then advise each other to delete data rather than release it.

If there is no "underlying data" as you assert, then why would these guys have had lengthy discussions about not releasing the data.

Read the emails, its pretty bad stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #216
219. Incorrect about what?
What did I say that was inaccurate?

"Phil Jones" is not any of the authors of the UN report, so he is not any of "these guys", unless your intent is to use him to smear all climate researchers. "Phil Jones" may have underlying data, but the authors of the UN report in the OP do not, as the article says, they based their report on published work.

Also, "these guys" do not gather up all of the climate data and "re-analyze" it, that isn't how summary reports on published research are done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #219
220. I'm sorry, I was talking about Climategate
WTF are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #220
222. I'm talking about your claim that I am incorrect about something.
Just a couple posts back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarLeftFist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
146. Oh I get it....You (trolls) are all of the newly unemployed lobbyists on K street. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
151. It is nothing more than a smear campaign
They rely on out of context quotes, ambiguous word meanings, and most of all public ignorance of the actual science. In reality, this doesn't touch climate science in any meaningful way, though it may have an effect on a couple of climatologists.

Whatever the denialists say, the glaciers in Greenland won't melt any slower, nor will the ice caps. The climate will continue to warm. The oceans will continue to acidify. Sea-level will continue to rise. And CO2 is the principal cause. There is no alternative explanation.

That, my friends, is reality. No one has to like it. But disliking it (or disliking the climatologists or their actions and words) doesn't change that reality a jot.

We'd better get on top of climate change...fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
209. OMG I FOUND A SMOKING GUN!!! ED HAS CONFESSED!!!
From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >
Subject: Re: hockey stick
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:25:41 -0400
Cc: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu >, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Mike,

No problem. I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way
and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don't want the work to
be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this
global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is
difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the
same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the
1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree
hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I
don't care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least
bloody close to it.

Cheers,

Ed

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=228&file...

SEE?!! ED HAS CONFESSED HE "raged in the 1980s." HE ALSO ADMITS THAT HE IS A RAVING TREE HUGGER IN THE POCKET OF THE COAL INDUSTRY!!! AND HE ALSO SAYS HE DOESN'T CARE!!!

:eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #209
214. Yeah. See: he also says he doesn't care about the truth
(or bloody close to it). :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
229. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
270. Amazing how the melting glaciers, retreating ice pack and rising temperatures
are cooperating in this conspiracy. Who knew that a conspiracy among thousands of scientists would actually have real world results? :shrug: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #270
276. Let's step back
And recall that the studies showing all of the above can't be replicated by anyone other than the original authors since they are not required to publish the raw data and models used.

That is the core of the issue, okay? "Trust us because we won't allow you to replicate our studies" doesn't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #276
283. Well, I suppose one could always go out and get your own "raw data and models"
to do your own studies on, you know, original work of your own? Like a lot of people all over the world are doing all the time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #283
288. Or we could use the original raw data to check their model
Edited on Sun Nov-29-09 03:08 PM by JonQ
oh wait, they shredded it. Like good scientists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #276
291. So you believe that this is the ONLY set of data on climate change?
Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that it's a conspiracy? In order to believe that it's a conspiracy, you have to believe that thousands of scientists would get together, make science up and keep it secret for decades. And you would have to ignore the all the evidence to the contrary: the melting glaciers, rising sea levels, rising temperatures and the retreating ice at the poles. Other than that, it's all a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #291
297. It's better than that, they threw it out back in the 1980s.
These guys KNEW back then that it would be crucial now, so they got rid of it to foil climate debunkers now. This is deep, really really deep stuff. These guys could see far ahead even way back then.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #291
306. You are making a common fallacy
two actually.

1) that proof of global warming is proof of manmade global warming. That is not the case.

2) that this would require a massive, well coordinated conspiracy to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #306
310. So spewing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that was stored
in the ground until humans mined or drilled it, refined it and then consumed it has had no effect? All that energy that was stored in the ground has to go somewhere once it is consumed. So all the other scientists are not involved in this? What is it? A conspiracy or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #310
325. Sigh
It has to be causing global warming because welll it just has to dammit!

"All that energy that was stored in the ground has to go somewhere once it is consumed. "

No, even they aren't arguing that. The theory put forth deals with the effects of greenhouse gases on the environment, trapping heat. Not the release of energy when the products are consumed.

"So all the other scientists are not involved in this?"

Just the prominent (read well funded and not blacklisted) climatologists. Not too many people are needed to make this happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #325
326. CO2 is the energy that is released since it's not consumed 100%
So you agree with the fossil fuel industry and the GOP and their propaganda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #326
339. That isn't right. It isn't even wrong.
CO2 is a molecule.

It is not "energy."

There is no more basic distinction in physics than the difference between matter and energy.

You have to ante to play in this poker game, which means you have to bring some chips. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #339
341. CO2 is a byproduct of the burning of fossil fuel, That is what i meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #341
342. Not necessarily
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 10:45 AM by JonQ
it's the byproduct of many things, and not even the worst greenhouse gas out there (or the most abundant, by far).

The reason it was picked is that it's relatively easy to measure and controlling it grants the most control over our lives compared to any other molecule because just about everything you do produces C02.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
284. It's not so much a smear campaign as an idiocracy campaign
As the troll posts on DU indicate.

Perhaps the aim is to fill the air with mindless screams, noise to drown out the signal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
343. These "hackers" need to be found out and forced to work in a garbage dump.
See how they like climate change then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #343
344. Yeah, effing whistleblowers
if those scientists wanted us to know about a conspiracy they were involved in they would have told us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC